Signing of blank documents

Case Law Register

Citations2006 CLD 1011 SUPREME-COURT

Relevant Laws: 2006 CLD 1011 SUPREME-COURT

CategoryCriminal

Observations: -S.9—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss.20 & 118—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Recovery of bank loan—Financing agreement—Authenticity—blank columns—Re-scheduling of loan—Banking Court as well as Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of bank and dismissed the appeal respectively—Plea raised by defendants was that at the time of Signing of financing agreement many columns were left blank and bank created a fictitious rescheduling agreement just to enhance its claim—Validity—Re-scheduling agreement was not only signed but defendants also affixed their thumb-impressions on it which were never denied—Contention of defendants that the genuineness and authenticity of re-scheduling agreement was not above board as relevant columns were left blank and filled in subsequently by the bank was repelled with observation by the Supreme Court even if it was admitted, then why the re-scheduling agreement was acted upon and pursuant thereof ten instalments had been paid and outstanding liability was reduced—In fact, instalments were made as per re-payment schedule which was inseparable part of re-scheduling agreement—Main object to get the renewed agreement was restructuring of finance facility and not liquidation of the liability—Re-scheduling agreement was authentic, genuine and executed between the parties and acted upon—No benefit could be given to defendants in view of the provisions of Ss.20 & 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the ground that the agreement was not completely filled in when executed as it would have no substantial bearing on the validity of the agreement—Signatures on various documents annexed with the plaint were not disputed by defendants which led the Supreme Court to draw the only unescapable conclusion that claim of bank was genuine and based on authentic documents —No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by defendants in the judgment and decree passed by High Court, which being well based did not warrant interference—Leave to appeal was refused.

(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

comments