BR100 Decreased By (-0.23%)
BR30 Decreased By (-0.01%)
KSE100 Decreased By (-0.19%)
KSE30 Decreased By (-0.24%)
AGHA 7.74 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.65%)
BECO 5.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.38%)
BML 60.01 Decreased By ▼ -1.22 (-1.99%)
BOP 36.46 Increased By ▲ 0.46 (1.28%)
CNERGY 11.94 Increased By ▲ 0.69 (6.13%)
CSIL 6.17 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 57.36 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (0.84%)
FFL 16.58 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.42%)
FNEL 1.20 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 7.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.35%)
KOSM 6.05 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
LOTCHEM 27.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.22%)
MLCF 102.07 Decreased By ▼ -1.02 (-0.99%)
NBP 206.35 Decreased By ▼ -1.28 (-0.62%)
NCPL 62.62 Increased By ▲ 0.70 (1.13%)
NPL 71.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.28%)
OGDC 319.19 Increased By ▲ 0.70 (0.22%)
PACE 11.38 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (2.89%)
PAEL 43.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-1.13%)
PIBTL 16.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.36%)
PPL 221.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.93 (-0.42%)
PRL 63.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.09%)
PTC 72.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-1.03%)
SSGC 27.28 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.11%)
TBL 9.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.2%)
TELE 8.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.16%)
TPL 20.68 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (1.67%)
TPLP 14.98 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.07%)
TREET 24.10 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 63.29 Increased By ▲ 0.92 (1.48%)

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.