RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] Section 2 Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891 - LawSite.today

Section 2 Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891

Section 2: Definitions

 

2012  CLD  1302   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SONERI BANK LIMITED VS COMPASS TRADING CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED

9(2)—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.2(8)—Certification of statement of accounts to be filed along with suit— Words “bank” and “principal accountant” as used in S. 2(8) of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—Scope—For purposes of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, such word “bank” would be read as “financial institution”, while such word “principal accountant” would include Chief Financial Officer —Certificate at end of such statement must be subscribed by any one of the officers identified by S. 2(8) of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—Principles.

2012  CLD  1302   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SONERI BANK LIMITED VS COMPASS TRADING CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED

Ss. 9 & 10—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891),  S. 2(8)— Suit  for  recovery  of  loan   amount  by Bank—  Application   for   grant   of   leave   to   defend  suit—Customer’s plea was that persons having certified statement of accounts were not “officers” as contemplated by S.2(8) of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891  and  were  not  in  employment  of   Bank   at  time of filing of such suit—Validity—Power of attorneys filed  along  with  plaint  simply  described  such  persons  to  be  officer  of  Bank without  having  power to certify such statement on behalf  of  plaintiff-Bank— None  of  such  attorneys  was  principal  accountant  or  manager  of  plaintiff-Bank— Certificates  at  the  end  of  such  statements  did  not  specify  name  or  title  of  its  signatories— Specific statutory requirements of S.2(8) of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 could not be ignored—Such statement was not duly certified within meaning  and  for  purposes  of  said  Act— Defendant was  entitled  to  unconditional  leave  to  defend  suit—High Court accepted leave application in circumstances.

2011  CLD  393   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS MUSLIM CO1TON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED

Ss. 9 & 10—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Leave to defend suit, application for—Defendant’s plea was that statement of accounts contained unjust entries without showing details thereof—Validity—Defendant in support of his plea had not pointed out any specific entry in such statement—Such statement lying on record contained all transactions of defendant’s account and was certified and dated by competent officer in accordance with provisions of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891—High Court repelled defendant’s plea for being vague.

2007  CLD  678   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Messrs MUJAHID NAWAZ COTTON GINNERS through Partners

—Ss. 9 & 18—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of loan by Bank—Statement of account submitted by Bank –“Certification” of such statement—Requirements—If the ‘certificate’ on the ‘statement of accounts’

2007  CLD  678   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Messrs MUJAHID NAWAZ COTTON GINNERS through Partners

–Ss. 89 & 18—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of loan by Bank—Submission of Bank statements, by Bank—Certificate to be given at the foot of such’ statements so as to make it a ‘certified copy’—Requireme

2005  CLD  393   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Messrs RAVI ASSOCIATE (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Director VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Senior Vice-President

—-Ss. 9 & 10—Bankers’ Book Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.2—Recovery of bank loan—Suit filed by person not duly authorized—Treating ‘Recovery Certificate’ as statement of account—Application for leave to defend the suit filed by defendants wa

2004  CLD  1338   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

UNITED BANK LIMITED VS Messrs ILYAS ENTERPRISES through Proprietor Mr. Ilyas Malik

—–S.12—Production of evidence—Burden of proof, discharge of–­Suits for recovery filed by the bank against the respondents were dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the bank had produced only one witness and a statement of account, in e

2004  CLD  937   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD NAFEES VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED

—-Ss.2(3) & 4–Statements of accounts—Presumption of correctness—Presumption attached to the statement of accounts is only to the extent that whatever figures are giver. or reflected therein are true and as per the book of account, there is no presu

2003  CLD  1406   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BANK OF KHYBER VS Messrs SPENCER DISTRIBUTION LTD.

—-Ss.3(2), 9 & 10—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss.2(8) & 4—Suit for recovery of loan amount–­Dismissal of application for leave to defend —Effect–­Allegations made in the plaint would be deemed to be admitted—Bank had produce

2003  CLD  931   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED VS BENTONITE PAKISTAN LIMITED

?

2002  CLD  1270   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YUSAF VS A.D.B.P.

—S.9(l)(2)—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891). Ss. 2(8) & 4—Suit by customer against Bank—Requirement of filing of statement of account with plaint—Banking Court rejected plaint for not being supported by statement of accounts—Validit

2002  CLD  1170   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SAUDI-PAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD VS MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED LAHORE

—-Ss.9 & 10—Banker’s Book Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.2(8)—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Application for leave to defend rejection of—Photo copies of documents produced by the plaintiff were not denied by defendants in their application for

2000  YLR  2527   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ANDREW JEHHINGS, DETECTIVE COSNTABLE IN METROPOLITAN POLICE, U.K.  VS DAUTACHE BANK A.G. LAHORE BRANCH, DAVIS ROAD, LAHORE

Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —-Ss.2(S)(6) 8c 6—Issuance of certified copies of transactions in account—Applicant, a foreign Police Officer, through his application filed under S.6 of Bankers’Books Evidence Act, 1891, had prayed that Bank be directed to provide hire certified copies of all transactions in accounts maintained by a person who was facing trial in a Court abroad for misappropriation of huge amount—Validity—Court could only give such direction if any legal proceedings were pending before it, but no such restriction regarding pendency of legal proceedings was placed on Judge of High Court as powers of High Court Judge under Bankers’Books Evidence Act, 1891 had not been conditioned, but High Court was empowered to issue such like direction even if no proceedings were pending before it—Unless powers of Courts were specifically excluded, they Would retain jurisdiction and power to make such direction for advancement of justice—Express words or clear intendment of necessary implication were required to take away jurisdiction of superior Courts—Superior Courts not only jealously guard their jurisdiction, but are always on the look to extend same to advance cause of justice—Legal technicalities would not come into the way so as to hamper the course of justice—What was not prohibited specifically, was permitted, provided same would not violate any express provision of law—High Court, in circumstances, directed Bank to issue certified copies as prayed for by the applicant.

1987  CLC  2353   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AKMAL VS GRINDLAYS BANK LTD.

Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S. 2(8)–Certified copy of statement of debtor’s account–Where Manager of Bank himself appeared in witness-box in proof of certified copy of statement of debtor’s account, mere omission of his full name, held, would not lessen authenticity of contents thereof, and would not relegate it to such position to be ignored from consideration.

1984  MLD  888   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN VS RAB NAWAZ MALIK

Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 —S. 2(8)–Certified copy of account—No error or omission in entries relating to deposit and withdrawal pointed out–Held, such copy was duly certified as required by Bankers’ Books Evidence Act and was prima facie evidence of such entries.

1972  PTD  453   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MESSRS FARID SONS LTD., KARACHI VS MESSRS GHULAM FARID MOHAMMAD SAEED

Bankers Books Evidences Act 1891 S. 2(3)”Banker’s Books”-Definition-“Minute book” of Bank “used in ordinary business” of Bank-Whether covered by definition of “Banker’s Books” in S. 2(3).

1972  PLD  311   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MESSRS FARID SONS LTD., KARACHI VS MESSRS GHULAM FARID MOHAMMAD SAEED

2(3)”Banker’s Books’-Definition- Minute book” of Bank used in ordinary business” of Bank-Whether covered by definition of “Banker’s Books” in S. 2(3).

Shopping Cart
× How can I help you?