Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 58

BANKING LAWS AND PRACTICE

Recovery Ordinance 2001

PRESENTED TO:
MR. ZARGHAM ULLAH KHAN
PRESENTED BY:
MUHAMMAD BILAL NAQVI M11BBA049
ASAD RIAZ
M11BBA045
ALI HAMZA
M11BBA071
SIDDIQUE DABIR
M11BBA074
RABANI INTIZAR
M11BBA032

MUHAMMAD DANISH MAJID

M11BBA044

BANK ALFALAH
V/S
SHOUKAT ZAMAN (KHAN)

SUIT FILED :

BEFORE THE JUDGE, BANKING COURT


NO.1 LAHORE.

Jurisdiction under Section 9 of the financial


institution (recovery of finances ordinance 2001)
Presented by Mr. Ahmad Pervaiz advocate at
12:10 pm on 02-01-2010
The suit bears court fess of 15000/(sufficient/insufficient) to the extent of

/-

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF LOAN OF 10,68,888.03/(ONE MILLION SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED AND EIGHTY EIGHT RUPPES AND
THREE PAISAS ONLY)

THE NOTICES ARE GIVEN IN THE DAILY


ENGLISH AND URDU NEWS PAPERS ON 20
JAN 2010.

SUMMON HAS BEEN SENT BY THE COURT


UNDER SECTION 9(5) IN FORM NO 4 TO
THE DEFENDANT ON 13-01-2010

OFFICERS POWER OF ATTORNEY

1. Mr. Ayyaz Mehmood butt


2. Mr. Jamshed Yousaf .

LOAN AGREEMENT
19-07-2005

REQUEST FOR THE FACILITY


DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR THE FACILITY ON 19-

07-2005.

PLAINTIFF BANK APPROVE A FACILITY FOR RS.

1,000,000/-

TERMS AND CONDITONED WAS GIVEN TO THE

DEFENDANTS.

TERMS AND CONDITION WAS DULY ACCEPTED

BY THE DEFENDANTS.

SIDDIQUE DABIR

M11BBA074

AGREEMENT:
AGREEMENT IS MADE ON 16-08-2005.
THE DEFENDANT HAS MAINTAINING AN

ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK.

BANK APPROVED TO FINANCE THE

CREDIT FACILITIES.

MORTGAGER IS THE LAWFULL OWNER

OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED.

AGREEMENT:
THE MORTGAGOR IS THE GURANTOR OF

THE FACILITY FOR RS.1,000,000/-

IN CASE DEFENDANTS COMMITS

DEFAULT THE BANK HAS RIGHT TO:


1. SERVE NOTICES TO DEFENDANT TO REPAY.
2. FILES A SUIT IN THE BANKING COURT
3. SELL/TAKE POSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
TO RECOVER THE FUNDS.

DESCRIPTION OF
MORTGAGE PROPERTY:
05 marlas 17 sq.ft consisting of

1142/1550 share of 07 kanals 25sq.ft


commonly known as plot no.4
Muhammad din Park ,

The estimated value of the mortgage

property is 18,40,000/- on this day 16


-08-2005

AGREEMENT FOR FINANCING ON MARKUP


BASES:
REQUESTED FACILITY OF 1,000,000/-

RUNNING FINANCE.

RS.1,260,000/- WHICH IS PAYBLE TO THE

BANK (PRINCIPLE +INTEREST) BY THIS


AGREEMENT.

PROMISSONARY NOTE:
SIGNED BY THE DEFENDANT
DEFENDANTS PROMISE TO PAY TO THE

BANK A SUM OF RS.1,260,000/-

UNDERTAKING:
DEFENDANT UNDERTAKE THAT HE SHALL

ALWAYS FOLLOW ALL THE REGULATIONS


OF SBP.

ANY PENALTIES CHARGED BY THESE

REGULATIONS ON BE DEFENDANTS
ACCOUNT.

MORTGAGE DEED:
SIGNED AT LAHORE ON 16-08-2005.
THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE THE PROPERTY IN THE

FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF BANK.

THE MORTGAGOR SHALL ,DURING THE

COUNTINUANCE OF THE MORTGAGE INSURED THE


PROPERTY.

THE MORTGAGOR SHALL PAY ALL RENTS/TAXES TO

THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY

IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT THE PLAINTIFF BANK CAN

SELL/TAKEPOSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.

RENEWAL POLICIES:
THE DEFENDANTS APPLIED TO THE BANK FOR THE

RENEWAL OF THE FACILITIES AND GRANTED BY THE


BANK ON FOLLOWINF DATES:

04-09-2006

31-08-2007

01-09-2007

31-08-2008

19-09-2008

30-09-2009

28-04-2009

30-09-2010

ASAD RIAZ

M11BBA045

PLAINT:

Amounts were disbursed to the


defendant
Defendant failed to perform their legal
obligation for the financing availed on
28/04/2009
Bank has sent the letters to the
defendant to perform his obligations..

PLAINT
PLAINTIFF CLAIM
As per record maintained by the bank
A sum of Rs. 1068888.03/- (one million sixty eight
thousand eight hundred eighty eight and three
paisas only) owed to the plaintiff bank by the
defendant bank.
9(3) (a) amount of finance availed by the defendant

Rs.1,000,000/-

9(3) (b) amount paid by the defendant


toward the finance
Rs.(not mentioned)

PLAINT
PLAINTIFF CLAIM
(9) (3) (c) amount of finance and other
amounts relating to the finance payable by

the defendants towards the bank:

PRINCIPAL: RS. 9,42,326.46


MARK UP: RS. 126,561.57
TOTAL :

RS: 1,068,888.03

(statements of accounts are duly verified in


accordance with the bankers book evidence
act, 1891 and recovery ordinance has an
integral part of this plaint)

PLAINT
PLAINTIFF CLAIM
the defendants have and
continue to commit wilful
DEFAULT in repayment
Repeated request have failed to
clear their liabilities. Hence, this
suit.

PLAINT
PLAINTIFF CLAIM

the cause of action arose in favor of the


plaintiff bank
the cause of action also arose every
time the above mentioned:
Were executed

Mortgage was created


Defendants defaulted in making their
payments
Defendants continue to be In default

PLAINT
PLAINTIFF CLAIM
19) that the parties reside and carry on their business

in Lahore
documents above are also executed in Lahore
The facility was also granted at Lahore
Lahore is where the cause of action arise

The Honourable Court has the exclusive jurisdiction


to:
a) Entertain this case
b) Adjudicate this matter

PLAINT
PLAINTIFF CLAIM
20) that the value of the suit is Rs. 1,068,888.03 (one

million sixty eight thousand eight hundred eighty


eight and three paisas only) and the maximum court
fee of the Rs. 15000/- has been affixed on the
plant.

PRAYER
In the view of the Aforesaid most respectfully said that the

court may be pleased to pass the decree in favor of the


plaintiff and against the defendant in the following
manner

a) for the recovery of Rs. 1,068,888.03/- (one

million sixty eight thousand eight hundred


eighty eight and three paisa's only)
b) The mark up and cost of funds , charges from

the date of default till realization of decretal


amount

PRAYER
c) The property mortgaged in favor of the

plaintiff be ordered to be sold for


satisfaction of the HONOURABLE COURTS
DECREE
d)

personal assets or other properties of the


defendants be attached and sold for the
satisfaction of the decree in favor of the
plaintiff bank.

PRAYER

e) in case the decree cannot be satisfied

through the liquidation the assets , the


defendants may be arrested and detained I
the civil prison in accordance with the law.
f) Costs of the suit and other expenses incurred

and to be incurred in this regard may also be


awarded;

PRAYER
Verification:

verified on oath at Lahore this 1st day of Jan 2010


that the contents of paragraphs number 1 to 17 are
true to the best of my knowledge and that the contents
of paragraphs number 18 to 20 are believed to be true
as per information received.

RABBANI INTIZAR

M11BBA032

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
In the court of judge banking court No 1 Lahore
Bank Al-falah V/S Shukaht Zaman etc.

on behalf of defendant under section

10 of the financial institution recovery


of finance ordinance 2001 for the grant
of unconditional leave to appear and
defend the suit

POWER OF ATTORNEY:

1. ALI SAJID MIRZA. ON BEHALF OF THE

DEFENDANT.
TO ACT AND APPEAR AND PLEAD IN
THE CASE
TO PRESENT PLEADINGS AND
APPELAS CROSS OBJECTIONS OR
PETITIONS

AFFIDAVIT:
Affidavit of Shaukat Zaman son of Khalil-ur-

Rahman resident of house no


shadbagh Lahore.

a.That the contents of the


accompanying application may
kindly be read as integral part of this
affidavit.
b. That the contents of the
accompanying application are correct
and true to the best of my knowledge
and nothing has been concealed
therefrom.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
1. That the plaintiff has not come to this

honorable court with clean hands hence suit is


liable to be dismissed.
2. That the plaintiff has no cause of action

against deponent hence the suit is liable to


be rejected.
3. That the suit of plaintiff is based on malice

and concoction which is totally based on the


futile imagination of the plaintiff. So, the
same is liable to dismissed with special cost
U\S 35 A CPC.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
4. that the following substantial question of law
and facts arise for determination by his
honorable court for which leave to defend is to
be granted to the applicant / defendant in the
interest of justice
I.
Whether the plaintiff has not come to this
honorable court with clean hands, Hence the suit
is liable to be dismissed .
II.

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action


against answering defendant hence the plaintiff
is liable to be rejected as it evident from the
clause 18 where no specific date default is
written as the space is left blank which proves

DEFENDANT CLAIM:

it is humbly submitted that no proper

authorization is given to Mr.ayyaz


mahmood and Muhammad jamshed
Yousaf

U/S 13 rule 1.2.3 it is mandatory

provision that all the document must


be original to be presented before
the court when the suit is filed.

ALI HAMZA

M11BBA071

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
It is submitted in this context that the
defendant / petitioner obtained the finance
facility which is obtained on the basis of
running finance facility for the running of his
business the defendant / petitioner
the plaintiff obtained facility on 19 .07.2005
to the extent of Rs. 10,00.000
paid more than 35,00,000

DEFENDANT CLAIM:

in the month of August 2009 on

the request of the bank


authorities Defendants/ petitioners
paid Rs. 55,000/- to the bank with
the commitments the matter be
settled amicably

DEFENDANT CLAIM:

instead of issuing the NOC to the

Defendants/ petitioners the


Defendants/ petitioners came by
surprised when on 15.03.2010 a
notice by hand is served upon by
the server of this Honorable court
regarding the pendency of this
titled suit.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
It is further to be added that as per

rules and based upon numerous


judgments of Apex courts the cases
must be decided on merits rather than
on technicalities as the Defendants/
petitioners never ever defaulted ,
therefore, under this score only the suit
is liable to be dismissed.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:

furthermore on probing into the matter

it that the suit is just filed to blackmail


and harassed the Defendants/
petitioners.

from clause 18 there is no specific

date upon when the Defendants/


petitioners became defaulters.

On this score this suit is liable to be

dismissed.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
(RENEWAL FACILITY)
The Defendants/ petitioners never

requested to further renewal of the


facility,

The bank to maintain his books good

requested the defendants for renewal of


the facility.

The Defendants are in good books of

the bank so they are renewing his


finance facility.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
4th feb 2011 lastly
The defendant paid Rs. 30.000/- upon

the assurance firstly that the bank


never initiate any proceedings against
the defendant.

the mortgage property of the

defendant / petitioners will be released


along with the issuance of NOC to the
defendant /petitioners

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
(RENEWAL FACILITY)

Defendant never ever requested

for the renewal of the plaintiff


bank.
Defendant never ever defaulted in
the repayment of the loan debt.
Defendant has paid more then
RS.35,000,000/- to the plaintiff
bank.

DEFENDANT CLAIM:
Para no 16 is denied vehemently and
categorically nothing is due against the
defendant /petitioners.
It is important to mention here that the defendant

/petitioners availed the running finance facility Rs.


10.00.000/ in the year 2005 and till august 2009
paid more then RS 35.00.000/
in the month august 2009 to settle the matter the

plaintiff bank demanded RS. 55.000 which was paid


by the defendant /petitioners

DEFENDANT CLAIM:

Para no 16 is denied vehemently and


categorically nothing is due against the
defendant /petitioners.
Also the plaintiff bank has failed to determine

the amount of default.


para no 17 is denied as the Defendants/

petitioners never ever defaulted in the


payment

DEFENDANT CLAIM:

No cause of action is accrued


in the favor of the plaintiff and
against the Defendants/
petitioners because the
Defendants/ petitioners never
ever defaulted in the payment
nor any specific date default is
written in the plaint.

BILAL NAQVI

M11BBA049

DEFENDANT PRAYER:

It is therefore, most respectfully

prayed that this application may


very kindly be accepted and leave
to appear and defend the suit
may also be granted to the
defendant or in alternative the suit
of the plaintiff be dismissed inliming in the light of Para no 18
of the plaintiff

SUMMARY:
No desion from 2/01/2010 until now.
The bank has malafied intension regards to the

property that mortgaged.

Due to malafied intensions bank didnt recognize


the payments made by the

client .

Plaintiff bank did not mentioned the date of default

in clause 18. under section 9 of the ordinance


it is mandatory to mention the date of default

SUMMARY:
The financial institution didnt give the original
documents in the court that is mandatory by

section 9 (1).

In the month of August 2009 the defendant paid

55000 to the bank for the settlement of account but


bank didnt issue NOC to the defendant and
defendant come by surprised when 15/03/2010 notice
by hand is served upon by court.

As per apex court decision that the defendant never

defaulted the case should be dismissed on this score.

The defendant never requested to further renewal of

the facilities but bank did it.

SUMMARY:

The bank official gave assurance to defendant

that if defendant has paid 30000 on 4th


February 2011 then bank will issue NOC and
never proceeding against the defendant.

The defendant paid 30000 to the bank official

but bank didnt issue NOC and gave samon to


the defendant.

The bank has failed to determine the amount

of the default

Under section 9(3) C the amount of default and the date of


default must be mentioned in the plaint.

SOLUTIONS
Due to the lack of employment in judiciary sector the

case is still pending in court The government should


employ more judges. so the case should be given
decision on time

The court should identify the malafied attention of

the bank and should give the decision accordingly as


early as possible because of the pending decision the
property value is deteriorating

SOLUTIONS
The fact of corruption cab be clearly observed in this

case the bank has not even mentioned the date of


default but still case pending when the main conflict
clause is not there

As per law the plaintiff

should submitted all original


documents in front of court but the can not presented
them as they have malafied attention in this case

The malafied attention of the plaintiff are clearly

exposed after receiving the settlement amount


instead of issuing the NOC the bank issued semen to
the client

SOLUTIONS
The banking court is not following the instruction of

higher court as per law the decision of Apex court is


consider as final decision but the decree given by
higher court is not implemented

The defendant didn't wanted to extend the period of

loan but the bank did it itself and it resulted in default


as per the claim of the bank

The bank official were indulge in bribes they approach

the defendant for the settlement of the case but it


never helped and once again the defendant was
exploited the bank should hire personnel who should
be loyal to the financial institutions

THANK YOU

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi