MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--- This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1998 passed by the Banking Court No. 4 Lahore in the sum of Rs. 41,71,745/-.
2. The dispute arises out of a suit for recovery of money filed by National Bank of Pakistan, respondent No. 1 herein, against the appellant, a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and three others who are its chief executive and directors respectively. According to the averments made in the plaint, at the request of the appellant, loan facility of Rs. 2.676 million under the State Bank of Pakistan Small Finance Industrial Scheme was sanctioned in the year 1992 which was availed of by the appellant. In order to secure the repayment of loan, the appellant executed various documents and created quitable mortgage of their property mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. Later on, the appellant applied for conversation of loan into ADB 902 Pak Loan which was allowed by the bank on 27.5.1993. The appellant opened an account in its own name. The loan was converted and the appellant vide its letter dated 9.6.1993 accepted the terms and conditions of the loan and also executed deed of revocation of the mortgage deed. As the appellant failed to repay the loan,. The suit was filed by the respondent hank against the appellant in which they were called upon to show cause notice as to why decree he not passed against them. In the reply filed by the appellant, various pleas of technical nature were raised, though sanction of the loan was not disputed. The learned Trial Court found no merit in the reply to the show cause notice and therefore, proceeded to decree the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant says that though originally the appellant company had authorised its chief executive to obtain loan from the respondent by passing a resolution but there is no such resolution forthcoming on the record as regards the conversion of the loan.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for various reasons firstly that it is not disputed that after the conversion of the loan money was utilized by the company for its business. Even if it be held that there was no resolution was passed at the time of the conversion of the loan, yet the appellant by its own act and conduct ratified the receipt of loan.
Furthermore, the doctrine of indoor management also comes in the way of the appellant especially when it is not denied that it was the chief executive of the appellant company who had executed various documents.
There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.