This is an appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Financ es) Ordinance, 2001 and lays a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Banking Court, Lahore. The issue in the suit as well as in this appeal relates to two finance facilities viz. FAPC and RF facilities in respect of which it was alleged in the plaint the appellants herein committed default and the financial institution was compelled to file suits for the recovery of the amounts due under the agreements executed on 01.05.201 1. During the course of the arguments today , the learned counsel for the appellants contested three entries in the statement of accounts.
These entries relate to FAPC facility and the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The simple plea of the learned counsel for the appellant was that these amounts were credited in the running finance account of the company . However , on the same date as they were credited in the said account, certain debit entries are also shown which are unexplained. However , the said procedure was adopted pursuant to the letter dated 8.3.201 1 written on behalf of the company to the respondent-Bank which is in the following terms: "We are enclosing the export Contract of (LSD 86.250/- for creation of FAPC Loan. You are requested by this letter kindly disburese FAPC loan Rs. 6,700,000/- and credit the amount to our RF A/c# 1242-40123438-03 styled M/s. Acro T extile Mills Ltd being maintained with you."
2. Thus, the appellant cannot now turn around and claim that the transaction was invalid or in contravention of the agreed terms of the contract. The letter reproduced above has not been denied by the appellants. Moreover , one of the entries dated 8.3.201 1 relates to a date prior to the execution of the Finance Agreement dated 01.05.201 1 and thus no exception can be taken to it. As regards the other two entries, these transactions came about after the letters were received on 23.6.201 1 and 11.7:201 1 on behalf of the company to undertake to transaction in the manner mentioned in those letters.
3. It may also be mentioned that the finance facilities were merely renewal of the existing RF and FAPC facilities. In this respect on 30.4.201 1 a corporate resolution was passed by the company for the request to be made to the respondent-Bank for disbursement of the amounts as, well as the renewal of the existing facilities. A Borrowers Basic Facts Sheet was also attached with the application made for the renewal of the facilities in which the- appellant company has admitted the availing of the facilities as well as an intention to seek renewal of those facilities. This was accompanied by existing, limits and status as annexure 'B' with the Borrowers Basic Facts Sheet. Apart from the existing facilities availed from other financial institutions annexure 'B' with the Borrowers Basic Facts Sheet clearly refers to the existing R12 and FAPC facilities being availed by the company . Nothing therefore turns on the challenge raised to the three entries in the statement of accounts made by the appellant company . Moreover , the argument cannot prosper on any other ground as well: The doctrine of financial estoppel is attracted in rebuttal to the argument raised by the appellants herein since it is not the case of the appellants that these statements of accounts were not in the knowledge of the appellants or that the 'appellants did, not have access to these statements and were thus kept in the dark regarding the contents of these statements of accounts filed 'in support of the plaint by the respondent-Bank. Also, the facility offer letter dated 4.8.201 1 clearly refers to the renewal of the facilities mentioned in, the said letter which. includes both RF and F APC.
4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is dismissed.