AIRLINK 72.59 Increased By ▲ 3.39 (4.9%)
BOP 4.99 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.84%)
CNERGY 4.29 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.7%)
DFML 31.71 Increased By ▲ 0.46 (1.47%)
DGKC 80.90 Increased By ▲ 3.65 (4.72%)
FCCL 21.42 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (7.1%)
FFBL 35.19 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (0.54%)
FFL 9.33 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.3%)
GGL 9.82 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.2%)
HBL 112.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-0.32%)
HUBC 136.50 Increased By ▲ 3.46 (2.6%)
HUMNL 7.14 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (2.73%)
KEL 4.35 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.84%)
KOSM 4.35 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (2.35%)
MLCF 37.67 Increased By ▲ 1.07 (2.92%)
OGDC 137.75 Increased By ▲ 4.88 (3.67%)
PAEL 23.41 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (3.4%)
PIAA 24.55 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (1.45%)
PIBTL 6.63 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (2.63%)
PPL 125.05 Increased By ▲ 8.75 (7.52%)
PRL 26.99 Increased By ▲ 1.09 (4.21%)
PTC 13.32 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.83%)
SEARL 52.70 Increased By ▲ 0.70 (1.35%)
SNGP 70.80 Increased By ▲ 3.20 (4.73%)
SSGC 10.54 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 8.33 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.6%)
TPLP 10.95 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.39%)
TRG 60.60 Increased By ▲ 1.31 (2.21%)
UNITY 25.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.12%)
WTL 1.28 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.79%)
BR100 7,546 Increased By 137.4 (1.85%)
BR30 24,809 Increased By 772.4 (3.21%)
KSE100 71,902 Increased By 1235.2 (1.75%)
KSE30 23,595 Increased By 371 (1.6%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that electronically computer-generated statements of accounts are admissible in evidence if the same did not bear signatures.

The court also held that under Section 2 (8) of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, there is no need to put a certificate on such accounts.

The court passed these orders in a petition of Tasleem Fatima against the Bank of Punjab and said the appellants’ counsel has not been able to point out any law point to the contrary. The court said in view of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, it feels no hesitation to agree with the opinion of the banking court.

The court dismissed the petition and observed that the counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any discrepancy in the calculation and that payments made beyond the expiry date have been adjusted.

The court observed that said the markup beyond the period of expiry has not been charged and the statement of accounts attached with the plaint does not suffer from any infirmity and payments made by appellants after the expiry period have been adjusted in accounts by the banking court.

The appellants have not been able to deny any entry in the statement of accounts and have not produced any documents to rebut the same hence, the application for leave was rightly dismissed, the court concluded.

The facts of the case are that the respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs 27,01,715 along with costs of funds and other amounts relating thereto against the appellant.

The respondent bank had sanctioned a loan of the amount of Rs 3 million and an amount of Rs 27,01,715 was outstanding at the time of filing of suit.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.