' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--Appeal in hand, filed by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, partially calls in question judgment and decree dated 9-9-1996, whereby the learned Banking Tribunal although partly decreed the appellants suit for the recovery to the extent of Rs.5,23,080, yet declined to award the claims of liquidated damages and insurance charges.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.8,97,706, against the respondent, before the then Banking Tribunal (since defunct). In response to the show cause notice, issued under section 6(2) of the said Ordinance, the respondent filed reply to the said notice, wherein although he admitted the availing of initial loan facility, yet vehemently denied the claims of the appellant-Bank relating to the liquidated damages, future mark-up and other charges. The then learned Banking Tribunal, after finding that the defendant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,02,330 and the appellant- Bank is not entitled to recover the amount of liquidated damages, future mark-up and insurance charges, decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.5,23,080, against the respondent, vide judgment and decree dated 9-9-1996, hence, the present appeal.
3. Despite notice for today, the respondent has not entered appearance, thus, he is proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has contended that although the appellant-Bank was entitled for the awarding of liquidated damages and the future mark-up, yet the same have illegally been declined by the then learned Banking Tribunal, as such, according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment needs modification.
5. So far as, liquidated damages are concerned, the appellant-Bank is not entitled to recover the amount of liquidated damages, as per principle laid down in the judgment reported as Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Faisalabad v. Messrs Aisha Garments etc. 2001 M LD 1955, wherein it has been held that the Bank is not entitled to recover the amount of liquidated damages In the above perspective, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court, thus, not open to exception.
6. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel regarding future mark-up, the same is equally without force. It is settled law and is also discernible from the basic concept of Islamic mode of financing that in the facts and circumstances of present rase, Bank is not entitled to claim future mark-up. Furthermore, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, also, does not empower the Banking Tribunal to award the future mark- up, hence, the contention of the learned counsel is repelled.
7. In view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is not only in accordance with the record of the case, but also in consonance with the law on the subject, thus, the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court, hence, the same is maintained.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.