AGL 40.40 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.5%)
AIRLINK 129.25 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.11%)
BOP 6.81 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (3.18%)
CNERGY 4.13 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (2.48%)
DCL 8.73 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (3.31%)
DFML 41.40 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.36%)
DGKC 87.75 Increased By ▲ 0.75 (0.86%)
FCCL 33.85 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (1.5%)
FFBL 66.40 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (0.76%)
FFL 10.69 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.42%)
HUBC 113.51 Increased By ▲ 2.81 (2.54%)
HUMNL 15.65 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (2.76%)
KEL 4.87 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.88%)
KOSM 7.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.68%)
MLCF 43.10 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (2.86%)
NBP 61.50 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (1.65%)
OGDC 192.20 Increased By ▲ 9.40 (5.14%)
PAEL 27.05 Increased By ▲ 1.69 (6.66%)
PIBTL 7.26 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (15.97%)
PPL 150.50 Increased By ▲ 2.69 (1.82%)
PRL 24.96 Increased By ▲ 0.40 (1.63%)
PTC 16.25 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.06%)
SEARL 71.30 Increased By ▲ 0.80 (1.13%)
TELE 7.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.68%)
TOMCL 36.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.03%)
TPLP 8.05 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (2.55%)
TREET 16.30 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (6.54%)
TRG 51.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.27%)
UNITY 27.35 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
WTL 1.27 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (3.25%)
BR100 9,957 Increased By 115.5 (1.17%)
BR30 30,770 Increased By 733.6 (2.44%)
KSE100 93,292 Increased By 771.2 (0.83%)
KSE30 29,017 Increased By 230.5 (0.8%)

LAHORE: A borrower has failed to shift his personal dispute with branch manager to the recovery proceedings of a bank against an outstanding running finance facility, said sources.

According to details, the borrower had availed running finance facility from a local bank. When the bank demanded repayment of the outstanding amount from him, instead of fulfilling his payment obligations, he alleged fraud committed by branch manager with him. Later on, it was unearthed that the branch manager was his relative.

The borrower was of the view that he was operating jointly two accounts along with his spouse. Initially, they operated a saving account with the bank and remitted a heavy sum of amount from abroad. During this period, they jointly also opened a running finance account to avail running finance facility against the pledge of Defence Saving Certificate.

According to him, the branch manager, without any lawful authority, frequently withdrew amounts from the running finance account and transferred this sum to another account holder. They further alleged that the said branch manager had also illegally withdrawn from the running finance account a heavy sum of amount in cash by forging cheques on different occasions.

Therefore, nothing was due and outstanding against them, as they hadn’t utilized a single penny of the finance. Instead, their investments were embezzled by the branch manager and he is responsible for the losses faced by the bank.

They also filed a police report against the branch manager, who has defrauded the bank as well as them. They pointed out that the bank had also initiated criminal proceedings against the manager with the FIA.

However, the bank management maintained that the couple had availed the finance and as per the FIR, they had a personal dispute with the branch manager, which they settled during the pendency of the repayment of the finance to the bank.

The settlement terms involved recovering a money amount from the branch manager through cheques. If the branch manager had defrauded them, they would have raised objections against the bank, but they did not. Instead, they filed criminal proceedings against the branch manager in person. Further, the couple had never ever filed any recovery suit against the bank.

Also, the bank management pointed out that the couple had claimed in the FIR against the branch manager that certain cheques issued by the branch manager had bounced, yet they did not initiate any recovery proceedings against him. Accordingly, the couple had no option but to discharge the financial liability against them.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.