INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN (IDBP) versus THE LEARNED JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO.III, LAHORE
Section 3, 17 and 9 Suit Order Fund Value Award Determination of Cost of Funds The mandatory nature of the Financial Institutions Section 3 (Recovery of Finance) Scope suit for the recovery of the Ordinance, 2001 was decided by the Bank and A fixed amount was determined by appellant bank as the cost of court funds as payable by the client / defendant for the appellant bank that this imposed order of the banking court was implemented by the financial institutions (finance). Recovery) was passed in violation of section 3 of the Ordinance 2001. The cost of the funds set by the Banking Court was contrary to Section 3 of the Ordinance, which was provided under Section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001, if the consumer defaulted on his / her own responsibility. If in case, be responsible for payment of such default till the receipt of outstanding dues, the cost of the funds of the financial institution as per the State Bank of Pakistan from time to time, in the present case, the Banking Court It did not take into account the cost rate of the funds set by the State Bank of Pakistan in the passage of the order. Oops. The Banking Court and nothing were told at what rate the funds were applied to the outstanding customer balance, while determining the amount to be paid by the user / defendant unknown order, against the necessary provisions. Was approved in violation. Section 3 of the Financial Institutions Finance (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 2001, directed the High Court to strictly determine the cost of funds, dismissed the order and referred the matter to the Banking Court.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
