AGL 37.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.08%)
AIRLINK 215.53 Increased By ▲ 18.17 (9.21%)
BOP 9.80 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (2.73%)
CNERGY 6.79 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (14.89%)
DCL 9.17 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (3.97%)
DFML 38.96 Increased By ▲ 3.22 (9.01%)
DGKC 100.25 Increased By ▲ 3.39 (3.5%)
FCCL 36.70 Increased By ▲ 1.45 (4.11%)
FFBL 88.94 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 14.49 Increased By ▲ 1.32 (10.02%)
HUBC 134.13 Increased By ▲ 6.58 (5.16%)
HUMNL 13.63 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (0.96%)
KEL 5.69 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (6.95%)
KOSM 7.32 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (4.57%)
MLCF 45.87 Increased By ▲ 1.17 (2.62%)
NBP 61.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.23%)
OGDC 232.59 Increased By ▲ 17.92 (8.35%)
PAEL 40.73 Increased By ▲ 1.94 (5%)
PIBTL 8.58 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (4%)
PPL 203.34 Increased By ▲ 10.26 (5.31%)
PRL 40.81 Increased By ▲ 2.15 (5.56%)
PTC 28.31 Increased By ▲ 2.51 (9.73%)
SEARL 108.51 Increased By ▲ 4.91 (4.74%)
TELE 8.74 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (5.3%)
TOMCL 35.83 Increased By ▲ 0.83 (2.37%)
TPLP 13.84 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (4.06%)
TREET 24.38 Increased By ▲ 2.22 (10.02%)
TRG 61.15 Increased By ▲ 5.56 (10%)
UNITY 34.84 Increased By ▲ 1.87 (5.67%)
WTL 1.72 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (7.5%)
BR100 12,244 Increased By 517.6 (4.41%)
BR30 38,419 Increased By 2042.6 (5.62%)
KSE100 113,924 Increased By 4411.3 (4.03%)
KSE30 36,044 Increased By 1530.5 (4.43%)

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.