AGL 24.24 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (3.28%)
AIRLINK 107.70 Increased By ▲ 1.59 (1.5%)
BOP 5.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.97%)
CNERGY 3.63 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.82%)
DCL 7.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-6.15%)
DFML 42.10 Decreased By ▼ -2.09 (-4.73%)
DGKC 88.80 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (0.34%)
FCCL 21.75 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 41.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-1.58%)
FFL 8.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.6%)
HUBC 148.75 Increased By ▲ 0.95 (0.64%)
HUMNL 10.14 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.07%)
KEL 4.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.38%)
KOSM 3.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-5.28%)
MLCF 36.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.55%)
NBP 47.75 Decreased By ▼ -1.55 (-3.14%)
OGDC 129.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.75 (-1.34%)
PAEL 25.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.77%)
PIBTL 6.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.83%)
PPL 113.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-0.79%)
PRL 22.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-1.33%)
PTC 12.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-2.18%)
SEARL 54.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.29%)
TELE 7.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.93%)
TOMCL 37.11 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (1.95%)
TPLP 7.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.39%)
TREET 15.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.9%)
TRG 55.54 Decreased By ▼ -1.16 (-2.05%)
UNITY 31.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-2.04%)
WTL 1.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.71%)
BR100 8,248 Decreased By -46.7 (-0.56%)
BR30 25,878 Decreased By -223.8 (-0.86%)
KSE100 78,030 Decreased By -439.8 (-0.56%)
KSE30 25,084 Decreased By -114.2 (-0.45%)

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.