AIRLINK 74.85 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (0.75%)
BOP 4.98 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.61%)
CNERGY 4.49 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.75%)
DFML 40.00 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (3.09%)
DGKC 86.35 Increased By ▲ 1.53 (1.8%)
FCCL 21.36 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.71%)
FFBL 33.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-0.79%)
FFL 9.72 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.21%)
GGL 10.45 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.29%)
HBL 112.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.23%)
HUBC 137.44 Increased By ▲ 1.24 (0.91%)
HUMNL 11.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.48 (-4.03%)
KEL 5.28 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (12.1%)
KOSM 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (4.28%)
MLCF 37.80 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.4%)
OGDC 139.50 Increased By ▲ 3.30 (2.42%)
PAEL 25.61 Increased By ▲ 0.51 (2.03%)
PIAA 20.68 Increased By ▲ 1.44 (7.48%)
PIBTL 6.80 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.34%)
PPL 122.20 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.08%)
PRL 26.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.26%)
PTC 14.05 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.86%)
SEARL 58.98 Increased By ▲ 1.76 (3.08%)
SNGP 68.95 Increased By ▲ 1.35 (2%)
SSGC 10.30 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.49%)
TELE 8.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.24%)
TPLP 11.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.63%)
TRG 64.19 Increased By ▲ 1.38 (2.2%)
UNITY 26.55 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.19%)
WTL 1.45 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (7.41%)
BR100 7,841 Increased By 30.9 (0.4%)
BR30 25,465 Increased By 315.4 (1.25%)
KSE100 75,114 Increased By 157.8 (0.21%)
KSE30 24,114 Increased By 30.8 (0.13%)

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 They further alleged that the said branch manager had also illegally withdrawn from the running finance account a heavy sum of amount in cash by forging cheques on different occasions.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.