AGL 38.20 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (0.55%)
AIRLINK 211.50 Decreased By ▼ -4.03 (-1.87%)
BOP 9.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-3.27%)
CNERGY 6.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.98%)
DCL 9.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-1.85%)
DFML 38.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.73 (-1.87%)
DGKC 96.86 Decreased By ▼ -3.39 (-3.38%)
FCCL 36.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.41%)
FFBL 88.94 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 14.98 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (3.38%)
HUBC 131.00 Decreased By ▼ -3.13 (-2.33%)
HUMNL 13.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-1.39%)
KEL 5.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-3.16%)
KOSM 6.87 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-6.15%)
MLCF 44.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-2.11%)
NBP 59.34 Decreased By ▼ -1.94 (-3.17%)
OGDC 230.00 Decreased By ▼ -2.59 (-1.11%)
PAEL 39.20 Decreased By ▼ -1.53 (-3.76%)
PIBTL 8.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-2.33%)
PPL 200.00 Decreased By ▼ -3.34 (-1.64%)
PRL 39.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.71 (-4.19%)
PTC 27.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.31 (-4.63%)
SEARL 103.32 Decreased By ▼ -5.19 (-4.78%)
TELE 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-3.89%)
TOMCL 35.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-1.34%)
TPLP 13.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-2.75%)
TREET 25.30 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (3.77%)
TRG 64.50 Increased By ▲ 3.35 (5.48%)
UNITY 34.90 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.17%)
WTL 1.77 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (2.91%)
BR100 12,110 Decreased By -137 (-1.12%)
BR30 37,723 Decreased By -662.1 (-1.72%)
KSE100 112,415 Decreased By -1509.6 (-1.33%)
KSE30 35,508 Decreased By -535.7 (-1.49%)

LAHORE: A customer of a local bank has failed to avert recovery proceedings against running finance facility on weak assertions, said sources.

According to details, the customer was availing running finance limit from the bank since long, followed by renewal of the facility to an enhanced limit, which was allowed by the bank. For the purpose of securing said loan from the bank, the customer had executed a number of documents.

Once the bank initiated recovery proceedings upon default in payment of due amount, the customer contested it on the ground that he had never filed application for renewal of loan. He further alleged his fake signatures on the sanction letter regarding renewal of the finance facility besides non-execution of other documents available on record. The customer also pointed out major contradictions in documents, including the statement of account, annexed to recovery proceedings.

However, the bank continued with recovery proceedings on the basis of registered mortgage deed, agreement for finance on mark-up basis, letter of hypothecation, personal guarantees of partners/ mortgagors/guarantors and memorandum confirming third deposit of title deed etc.

The customer failed to prove that the statement of account was not certified within the meaning of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, therefore, the relevant forum turned down the objection regarding its authenticity. Similarly, his signatures were found in conformity with those available on the sanction letter and validity when a comparison was made by the competent authority. In addition, the other available documentary evidence also negated the version of the customer and supported that of the bank.

Accordingly, the customer failed to substantiate his assertions, needed to be tried or investigated into, as he could not prove his alleged repayment suppressed by the bank.

The competent authority made it clear that the parties have no option to make general allegations/assertions in banking disputes, especially in respect of amounts. Rather, they should and absolute and specific to investigate upon, it added. Therefore, disposal of the mortgaged property by the bank was in line with its lawful recovery proceedings for both the principal amount and the mark-up.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.