Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming that he had already paid off all liabilities related to a loan facility obtained from Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. The respondent bank, however, claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 154,764 and sought the imposition of the cost of funds due to default. The Banking Court decreed in favor of the bank, reducing the excess markup charged after the expiry of the loan facility but allowing the bank to recover the cost of funds from the date of default until the amount was paid in full. The appellant challenged the Banking Court’s decision regarding the cost of funds. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Banking Court had jurisdiction to impose the cost of funds under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO, 2001) in a suit filed by the appellant. 2- Whether the cost of funds imposed by the Banking Court was valid in light of the appellant’s payment after the expiry of the loan facility. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Banking Court had the jurisdiction to impose the cost of funds under Section 3 of the FIO, 2001, as the appellant himself had approached the court for a determination of his liabilities. The Court found that the Banking Court had correctly reduced the excess markup charged after the expiry of the loan facility but had properly allowed the bank to charge the cost of funds from the date of default until full payment (January 11, 2008), as per the rate specified by the State Bank of Pakistan. The appellant could not challenge the jurisdiction of the Banking Court because he had sought relief from the court, and the court's decision to impose the cost of funds was in line with the law. The appellant’s argument that the Banking Court had no jurisdiction to impose the cost of funds while it had jurisdiction to reduce the markup was rejected. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming that there was no illegality in the Banking Court’s judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: Habib Bank AG Zurich through Manager v. Mustafa Shams-ud-Din Ghatilla and others (2003 CLD 658) Haji Fazal Elahi and Sons through Muhammad Tariq v. Bank of Punjab and another (2004 CLD 162) Habib Bank Ltd. v. Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. (2006 CLD 842) Prime Commercial Bank Limited v. Agricide (Private) Limited and others (2006 CLD 940) Trycot Synthetic Fibre Company through Proprietor and another v. Habib Bank Limited (2012 CLD 1670)

Summary: "PLJ 2013 Peshawar 144 [Abbottabad Bench] - Present: Waqar Ahmad Seth, J. Mrs. Alam Ara (Appellant) vs. Dr. Shaista Tariq, Incharge Mother Care Hospital (Respondent). RFA No. 32 of 2007, decided on 1.1.2013. ----Damages: This was a suit for the recovery of damages due to alleged wrong diagnosis and treatment. The appellant claimed substantial loss as the child was dead one month before the diagnosis and treatment began, while only blood pressure treatment was initially sought. The plaintiff failed to prove negligence by the doctor, as mere carelessness alone does not establish actionable negligence; a duty of care must be demonstrated, where failure in that duty caused damages. In this case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable. The gynecologist who operated on the appellant and removed the deceased fetus testified, admitting that blood pressure could affect fetal growth and that there could be a two-week margin in estimating fetal age using BPD and FL, creating reasonable doubt favoring the respondent. Further, it was clarified that the appellant's reproductive capability remained intact, leaving no grounds to infer negligence beyond natural causes. -----Background: The appellant filed a suit for damages, alleging negligence in diagnosis and treatment by the respondent, a doctor, leading to the intrauterine death of her fetus and loss of future childbearing capacity. During pregnancy, the appellant was prescribed medication for high blood pressure. After experiencing issues with fetal movement, she sought treatment multiple times without improvement. Later, another doctor confirmed the fetal demise, and the appellant underwent a C-section to remove the fetus, leading her to claim damages for alleged medical negligence. -----Issues: 1- Existence of Duty of Care: Whether the respondent had a duty of care in diagnosis and treatment that was breached. ----2- Negligence and Causation: Whether the alleged negligence by the respondent was the cause of the appellant’s harm and subsequent damages. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding there was no actionable negligence by the respondent. The essential duty of care in negligence cases requires that failure in duty leads directly to damages, which was not established here. Evidence showed that high blood pressure affected the fetus, and no conclusive link to the doctor’s treatment was proven. The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, which implies negligence through obvious circumstances, was inapplicable as the respondent was not solely responsible for the appellant’s care. -----Citations/Precedents: 2010 MLD 134: Defined negligence as the failure to perform an expected duty leading to injury or loss. Doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur: Applied only when the respondent has sole control, the occurrence implies negligence, and no alternative explanations exist.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.