MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant appeal assails judgment and decree dated 24-6- 1996 passed by the Banking Tribunal-IV, Lahore, whereby a decree for an amount of Rs.11,18,787 was passed in favour of the appellant, as against its claim of Rs.19,79,230.50.
2. A short factual background of the case is that respondent No.1 being in the dairy business, was exclusively owned by respondent No.2, who opened an account with the appellant-Bank, McLeod Road Branch, Lahore, on 16-2-1987. Respondent No.1 applied to the appellant-Bank for grant of cash finance ' facility, which was allowed to it vide advice dated 25-7-1987 to the extent of Rs.225(M) on mark-up basis against hypothecation of stock and registered mortgage deed with another advance of Rs.775(M) on hire purchase finance facility in the year 1988-89 and 1989-90.
Respondent No.1 again requested the appellant-Bank to render it facility of C.S.F., which was also allowed by way of move-over. Respondent No.1 availed the finance facility to the tune of Rs.1.0 million and the outstanding amount, in both the above referred facilities, according to the appellant-Bank, came to Rs.19,79,230.50. The appellant-Bank got secured the finance facilities rendered to the respondents through execution of promissory notes, letter of hypothecation and agreement of finance from the respondents. On refusal of the respondents" to pay back the outstanding amount, a suit for recovery of the above mentioned amount was filed before the Banking Court, wherein notices in terms of section 6(2) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, were ordered to be issued to the respondents on 15-4-1996. The respondents filed reply to the show-cause notice on 9-5-1996 within the specified statutory period.
3. The Banking Court on 24-6-1996 after perusal of the record and hearing arguments of the parties granted the appellant-Bank, a decree for an amount of Rs.11,18,787 and refused to allow it liquidated damages as well as compound interest as included in the statement of account.
Aggrieved of this shortfall in the decretal amount and claim of the appellant, this appeal has been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record including the statement of accounts maintained by the appellant-Bank in the name of respondent No. 1 .
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondents availed two finance facilities, out of which one was sanctioned on 25-5-1987 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000 and on 1-1-1989 Buy Back in IB-6 was completed showing a sum of Rs,3,11,288. Regarding this amount learned counsel for the respondents submitted that mark-up on this amount comes to Rs.86,288 and a sum of Rs.2,62,882 is outstanding against them as per statement of accounts filed by the appellant-Bank itself. He further added that a new sanction 'advice was alleged to have been executed by the respondent on 31-5-1988, which is a forged document as no application for renewal of previous facility was made by them. According to him, IB-6 shows that it was executed on 16-1-1991, whereas the new sanction advice is stated to have been executed on 31-5-1988. He further explains that first sanction was up to 31-12-1988 and thus there was no occasion for renewal of facility on 31-5-1988.
Besides it he emphasizes that IB-6 was allegedly executed on 16-1-1991 and there being a big gap of about 3 years between 31-5-1988 and 16.-1-1991, it on the face of the record, is forged. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appellant-Bank has charged a compound mark-up, which is not permissible under law.
5. The second account on the basis of agreement in IB-6 is dated 10-6-1987 and an amount of Rs.7,75,000 was availed under the sanction advice.. This amount was payable in half-yearly instalments of Rs.1,42,651 and by the time suit was filed seven instalments 'had become 'due and if amount of one installment is multiplied by seven the total amount comes to Rs.9,98,597' but as against it, in the Buy Back agreement, the demand has been shown to be Rs.11,39,210. In such-like cases, markup for one year can only be claimed by the bank. By adjusting the amounts paid by the respondents, an amount of Rs.7,41,253 is payable by the respondents as against this account.
6. We have also seen the statement of accounts filed by the appellant-Bank and by calculation we come to the conclusion that as against first account of the respondents an amount of Rs.2,62,882 is outstanding whereas, against second account the installment fixed in the agreement is Rs.1,42,651 which, if multiplied by seven, comes to Rs.9,98,557 which was to be paid by the respondents. Out of this the respondents have paid an amount of Rs.1,42,651 (one installment). The balance amount payable by the respondents is Rs.8,53,905 and the total of these two accounts which becomes payable by the respondents is Rs.11,18,787. In this manner the decree granted by the learned Banking Court is strictly according to the statement of accounts of the respondents maintained by the appellant-Bank itself. No other ground is urged before us and we find no substance in this appeal for interference in the impugned judgment and decree, hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.