BR100 Decreased By (-0%)
BR30 Increased By (0.56%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.32%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.43%)
AGHA 6.43 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.74%)
BECO 4.36 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (2.11%)
BML 62.59 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.22%)
BOP 31.43 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.64%)
CNERGY 11.68 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.78%)
CSIL 5.86 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (2.45%)
FCCL 60.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-1.22%)
FFL 14.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-1.8%)
FNEL 1.24 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.81%)
KEL 6.32 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.96%)
KOSM 5.89 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (5.94%)
LOTCHEM 24.70 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.08%)
MLCF 103.03 Decreased By ▼ -1.05 (-1.01%)
NBP 173.00 Decreased By ▼ -2.28 (-1.3%)
NCPL 52.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-1.27%)
NPL 53.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.41%)
OGDC 316.69 Increased By ▲ 3.30 (1.05%)
PACE 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.65%)
PAEL 35.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.14%)
PIBTL 13.66 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.41%)
PPL 226.70 Increased By ▲ 4.89 (2.2%)
PRL 80.60 Increased By ▲ 1.52 (1.92%)
PTC 46.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-0.53%)
SSGC 23.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.42%)
TBL 9.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.32%)
TELE 7.57 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.44%)
TPL 24.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-1.63%)
TPLP 12.85 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (2.72%)
TREET 25.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-1.3%)
TRG 53.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.19%)

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 for this article.