JUDGMENT SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RFA No.504/2010
(Allah Ditta vs. ZTBL)
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2012
Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Umar Riaz, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Shahid Mahmood Khan, Advocate.
CH. SHAHID SAEED, J:- This RFA assails the judgment dated 31.03.2010 passed by learned Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala whereby he dismissed the suit for declaration with permanent Injunction filed by the appellant.
2. The cause of action as given in the RFA is that the appellant alongwith others obtained a loan of Rs.3,23,500/- from respondent-Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) for purchase of a tractor on 19.12.1993. It was agreed between the parties that the loan obtained will be repaid to respondent bank in 20 equal installments of Rs.28,469/- till 07.07.2004. The loanees kept on paying the installments and paid Rs.351,480 when they received a notice which in fact was a relief package for the loanees. As per sub-clause 3 of clause “ .” of the notice, all the loanees, who had received loans upto Rs.10,00,000/-, could get their accounts closed by depositing the principal amount plus 20% minus the amount already deposited in shape of principal as well as interest uptill 31.12.2000. The appellant approached the
RFA No.504/2010
2. Respondents bank who was advised to deposit the amount of Rs.53,000/- which was paid by the appellant in two installments of Rs.25,000/- dated 29.11.2000 and Rs.28,000/- dated 30.11.2000 totalling the repayment of Rs.4,04,840/- but the respondents refused to close the account of the appellant. He then approached this Court through Writ Petition No.25135/2000 for getting close of his account which was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2004 holding that an alternate remedy was available to the appellant. Afterwards, the appellant for redressal of his grievance instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction before the Banking Court, Gujranwala who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 31.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the present RFA has been instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant chiefly contends that the respondents themselves offered an incentive package which was accepted and availed with due consultations with officials of respondents bank; that the bank cannot take plea that the incentive package was not for the appellant short by one installment but for the loanees who had defaulted at least two installments or more is without any force; that the case of the appellant is on better footing even if the plea of respondent-bank is taken into consideration; that the learned Judge Banking Court has badly failed to apply his judicious mind and erred in law while passing the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant prays
RFA No.504/2010
3
that the instant RFA be allowed, the impugned judgment be set aside and the respondents be directed to close the accounts of the appellant forthwith.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-bank vehemently opposes this RFA and fully supports the impugned judgment. He argues that the notice was issued to all the accounts holders irrespective of their eligibility for the incentive offered. His main emphasis was on the point that the loanees whose two installments, at least, were short while the appellant having short by one installment only was neither entitled nor could avail the relief offered by the bank through notice in question. He avers that the RFA merits dismissal.
5. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the respondents-bank offered incentive package to all the loanees of upto Rs.10,00,000/-. As per sub-clause 3 of clause “ .”, the bank offered to its loanees who have obtained loans during the period from 01.07.1992 to 30.06.1997 that they could get their accounts closed by depositing only the principal amount plus 20% minus the amount of principal plus interest already repaid by the loanees uptill 31.12.2000.
RFA No.504/2010
4
7. The record shows that after receipt of the notice, the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.53,000/- in two installments of Rs.25,000/- on 29.11.2000 and Rs.28,000/- on 30.11.2000 and resorted to bank authorities for closing their account as they have deposited the amount as per offer of the bank made vide notice mentioned hereinbefore. The respondents, however, refused to close the account of the appellant on the pretext that the relief package was not meant for the people who are regularly repaying their loans to the bank but for those who are defaulter at least of two installments. Since the appellant was short by one installment only, he could not get the relief offered by the bank. The bank while refusing the relief to the appellant demanded further sum of Rs.3,97,493/- from him.
8. The stance taken by the respondents-bank is astonishing enough which tantamounts encouraging people who obtain loan from the banks with intention not to return. In fact, the relief should be for those whose dealings are more clean so that the people who pay their loans regularly could be encouraged more and the other people who intend to get loans could also adopt the same practice. But, unfortunately, the attitude of banks is otherwise as it is softer to the defaulters and harder to regular payers. It is common practice herein Pakistan that the small loanees are subjected penalization even to auction of their houses in case of default but the loanees of crores and billions are free
RFA No.504/2010
5
from any difficulty rather their loans are written off by the governments/banks. This practice is neither appreciable nor in accordance with injunctions of Islam.
9. The bare perusal of record shows that the respondent-bank has itself offered a scheme which was accepted by the appellant being its loanee and deposited the requisite amount within the stipulated time. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent bank that the relief offered was for defaulters of at least two installments and not for the regular payers of loans and that the appellant being regular payer and short by only one installment was not entitled to the incentive offered by the bank is untenable. When the bank undeniably has offered a relief package which was accepted and the amount was deposited, the bank could not refuse that it was not for the regular payers of loans but for defaulters. The bank’s offer and money deposited in response thereto have created valuable rights in favour of the appellants. The case of the appellant for availing the facility offered by the bank was on much better footing as compared to those who, in view of the bank, were ‘deserving’ for the relief. In this view of the matter, the case of the appellant duly falls within the purview of the bank’s incentive scheme and the bank was obliged to admit the claim of the appellant and close his account. The bank cannot be allowed to turn turtle and adopt a new version and claim anything which is contrary to that relief package.
RFA No.504/2010
6
10. Persons equally placed must be treated alike in matters of privileges and liabilities under the rule of equal protection of law, as envisaged in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Refusing benefit of relief package to the appellant will not only discourage the regular payers of loans but also will penalize them for ‘making regular payment. Learned Judge Banking Court has failed to apply his judicious mind and erred in law while passing the impugned judgment which is not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the dictums laid down in case Mst. Anwar Begum through Attorney vs. Zarai Taraqiati Bank of Pakistan through Manager and 4 others (2009 YLR 308).
11. For what has been stated above, this RFA is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2010 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Banking Court for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, strictly in accordance with law.
(Ijaz Ahmad)
Judge
(Ch. Shahid Saeed)
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment