HABIB BANK LTD.
through Regional Manager Auto Recovery--Petitioner
versus
LEARNED JUDGE
BANKING COURT-IV, LAHORE
and another--Respondents
W.P. No. 3592 of
2010, decided on 29.10.2010.
Constitution of Pakistan,
1973--
----Art.
199--Constitutional petition--Repossession of vehicle--Auto lease finance
facility was obtained--Defaulted in payment of monthly installment--Suit for
rendition of accounts was filed before Banking Court--Possession of the vehicle
was handed over to respondent--Challenge to--Whereby bank had declined to waive
of early settlement charges on auto finance account against full and final
settlement after obtaining approval of banks competent authority and proceeded
to deduct monthly installments upto from respondents
account--No mention of amount paid or amount outstanding against him--Bank was
withholding vehicle against a small amount which was outstanding which
ultimately persuaded Banking Court while passing the order was not borne out
from record of file nor the plea was taken by respondent in suit for rendition
of accounts filed before Banking judge--Bank rightly repossessed the vehicle
and action had illegally been set at naught by Banking Court--Petition was
allowed. [P. 264] A & B
Mr. Bilal Kashmiri, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Shahid Ikraam Siddiqui,
Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing:
7.9.2010.
Order
Petitioner
through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 prays as under:
"that this
petition may kindly be accepted and impugned order dated 18.02.2010 may kindly
be set aside and Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to proceed with the
matter expeditiously without unnecessary loss of time and time may be fixed for
its earlier disposal in the interest of justice."
Any other
appropriate relief that this honourable Court may
deem proper may also be granted in the interest of justice."
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the
Respondent No. 2 obtained auto lease finance facility of one Honda City EXIS
amounting to Rs.8,30,500/- against securities. The
respondent defaulted in payment of monthly installments and pursuant to clause
12 of the lease agreement the petitioner-bank took possession of the said motor
vehicle. The Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for rendition of accounts and
permanent injunction against the petitioner before the learned Banking
Court-IV, Lahore.
During the pendency of the PLA filed by the petitioner, learned Banking
Court-IV, Lahore through the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 handed over the
possession of the said vehicle to the Respondent No. 2 by relying on letter
dated 25.07.2008
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that both the parties are bound by the terms of the lease agreement; that the
Respondent No. 2 defaulted in payment of monthly installments and pursuant to
Clause 12 of the lease agreement the petitioner-bank rightly took the
possession of the vehicle; that the learned Judge Banking Court has illegally
relied upon letter dated 25.07.2008 and granted possession of the said vehicle
to the Respondent No. 2 through the impugned order which is not sustainable
under law. Further that Respondent No. 2 is a defaulter of many banks including
the petitioner-bank as per report of the Consumer Protection Department of the
State Bank of Pakistan;
that the Respondent No. 2 has also defaulted in payment of monthly installments
of another auto lease finance facility for Suzuki Baleno
Car obtained from the petitioner-bank.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent
No. 2 contends that the Respondent No. 2 has not defaulted in payment of
monthly installments; that the petitioner-bank illegally took over the
possession of the vehicle from the petitioner forcibly; that the Respondent No.
2 has paid major portion of his liability and only small amount is outstanding
against him; that the learned Banking Court has rightly directed the petitioner
bank to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the Respondent No. 2 through
the impugned order.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused. The learned Judge Banking Court
through the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 has based his reasoning on the
letter dated 27.07.2008 while directing the petitioner-bank to return the
vehicle to the Respondent No. 2. Perusal of letter dated 25.07.2008 shows that
the said letter is in response to the respondent's request to the
petitioner-bank for waiving off the respondent's penalty for early settlement
charges from the total amount of loan payable in respect of the leased vehicle.
6. The learned Judge Banking Court while passing
the impugned order has blatantly misconstrued the petitioner's reply dated
15.11.2008, to the
respondent's request dated
25.07.2008, whereby the petitioner-bank had only declined to waive of early
settlement charges on auto finance account against full and final settlement,
after obtaining approval of the petitioner-bank's competent, authority, and
proceeded to deduct the monthly installments upto the
month of November 2008 from the respondent's Account No. 1019-05173869-03.
There was no mention of the amount paid by the respondent or the amount
outstanding against him in the said letter.
7. So far as the respondent's contention before
the learned Judge Banking Court that he had deposited an amount of Rs.4,57,311/-
in lieu of the finance facility and the petitioner bank is withholding the
vehicle against a small amount of Rs.23,670/82 which is outstanding against the
respondent which ultimately persuaded the learned Judge Banking Court while
passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 is not borne out from the record of
the file nor the said plea was taken by the respondent in his suit for
rendition of accounts filed before the learned Banking Judge, therefore, the
petitioner-bank pursuant to clause 12 of the lease agreement rightly
repossessed the vehicle and the petitioner's action has illegally been set at
naught by the learned Judge Banking Court through the impugned order. This
being so, this constitutional petition is allowed and the impugned order of the
learned Judge Banking Court
dated 18.02.2010 is set-aside. Moreover, the learned Judge Banking Court-IV, Lahore is directed to
conclude the proceedings-expeditiously and preferably within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(R.A.) Petition
allowed
No comments:
Post a Comment