KARACHI, Dec 24: A division bench of the Sindh High Court has appointed a chartered accountants firm to examine and scrutinize the Habib Bank’s Jodia Bazaar branch’s accounts pertaining to Penguin Garments Industries.
The bench comprised Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Mushir Alam.
The order has been passed in an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court No 5 at Karachi in favour of the HBL for the recovery of Rs1,23,52,454.50 with future mark-up.
The appellant, in their appeal, had claimed that M/s Penguin Garments had been banking and conducting its export business through the HBL since 1985. However, the HBL had caused enormous losses to the appellant by charging excessive amount purportedly towards mark-up.
It was claimed that the HBL had in fact charged mark-up at excessive and impermissible rate and for many years after and beyond the sanctioned dates of repayment and with compounding effect.
It was pointed out that as per tentative estimates the HBL had purportedly adjusted an enormous amount at Rs11.966 million towards the so-called mark-up, whereas the amount overcharged by the bank by applying mark-up at excessive rate was in excess of Rs1.869 million.
It was in fact on account of excessive and exorbitant amounts charged by the HBL that caused serious liquidating problem for its business, that the appellant was forced to wind up the business, and thus would have been fully justified in seeking damages for the enormous losses sustained on account of the HBL and seeking refund of the amount overcharged by it.
Maqbool Baqer, counsel for the appellant, during his arguments in the court submitted that the respondent’s claim in the suit was based on a purported agreement for financing dated 29. 1. 1995. However, it could be seen from the purported statement of account relied on by the HBL for its claim in the suit, that the HBL’s claim was constituted, inter alia, of an amount of Rs74,69,704. 48 being the first entry in the statement of account, purportedly brought forward and debited on 25. 1. 1995.
The counsel contended that the reason for the bank’s avoiding to explain the said debit entry was that the same had been debited on account of excessive and exorbitant mark-up charged by the HBL, illegally and unauthorizedly.
He further pointed out that the statement of account contained three more debit entries of the period prior to the agreement which, too, besides various other amounts unlawfully debited in the statement, the bank could not lawfully seek to recover under the aforesaid agreement.