AIRLINK 69.92 Increased By ▲ 4.72 (7.24%)
BOP 5.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.97%)
CNERGY 4.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.32%)
DFML 25.71 Increased By ▲ 1.19 (4.85%)
DGKC 69.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.16%)
FCCL 20.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.38%)
FFBL 30.69 Increased By ▲ 1.58 (5.43%)
FFL 9.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.81%)
GGL 10.12 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.1%)
HBL 114.90 Increased By ▲ 0.65 (0.57%)
HUBC 132.10 Increased By ▲ 3.00 (2.32%)
HUMNL 6.73 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.3%)
KEL 4.44 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 4.93 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.82%)
MLCF 36.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.55 (-1.49%)
OGDC 133.90 Increased By ▲ 1.60 (1.21%)
PAEL 22.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.18%)
PIAA 25.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-1.93%)
PIBTL 6.61 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.15%)
PPL 113.20 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (0.31%)
PRL 30.12 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (2.41%)
PTC 14.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-3.54%)
SEARL 57.55 Increased By ▲ 0.52 (0.91%)
SNGP 66.60 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.23%)
SSGC 10.99 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.09%)
TELE 8.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.34%)
TPLP 11.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-1.62%)
TRG 68.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.01%)
UNITY 23.47 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.3%)
WTL 1.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-2.9%)
BR100 7,394 Increased By 99.2 (1.36%)
BR30 24,121 Increased By 266.7 (1.12%)
KSE100 70,910 Increased By 619.8 (0.88%)
KSE30 23,377 Increased By 205.6 (0.89%)

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.