The Federal Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a court of first instance to obligate a bank agent to pay AED 933,000 for a bank. He explained that he had received two personal loans and stopped paying without justification, although he works and receives a monthly salary of 17,000 dirhams. Sufficient before granting the two loans.
In details, Bank filed a lawsuit against a stumbling agent, demanding the defendant to pay 933,184 dirhams, and benefit 12% of the date of claim until full payment.
The bank said that "the client was granted two personal loans worth 704 thousand dirhams paid in 120 installments per month, but he stopped payment without justification.
The court ruled that the client will pay the bank an amount of AED 933,140 and a benefit of 2% from the date of the lawsuit until the payment is completed. The Court of Appeal ruled that the ruling was canceled and the case was not accepted. The court said in its appeal that "the appeal judgment erred in the application of the law. It was based on its decision not to accept the action pursuant to the 1995 High Court ruling that it did not receive sufficient guarantees in kind or cash to repay the loan at the time it was granted. The client's salary is not sufficient to repay the loans. And that he can pay the monthly installment of his salary of 17 thousand and 610 dirhams, and that the bank received personal guarantees in the form of a guarantee check drawn on a local bank and a bill, and the customer paid 143,458 Dirham of the two loans, indicating the ability to pay, and the judgment b Failure to accept the claim by saying that the bank did not receive sufficient guarantees to pay the two loans, it would be wrong to apply the law to the contrary.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that the borrower's ability to pay and whether his income was balanced with the size of banking facilities granted him a condition for accepting the bank's claim against him.
She pointed out that the hard copy of the lawsuit and the report of the managing expert, that the two loans worth 704 thousand dirhams paid in 120 monthly installments, the value of each of 6124 dirhams, and that the plaintiff works salary of 17 thousand and 610 dirhams, and that he paid from the two loans about 143 thousand dirhams, That he was able to pay the loan, that he was not unemployed or had low income, and it was proved that the bank had received personal guarantees from the defendant represented in the bank guarantee of two banks and two signed from it, and the ruling of appeal not to accept the application in accordance with the Supreme Court saying that the bank did not take In-kind or cash guarantees for the repayment of the two loans, it is defective in violation of the law And the error in its application, which requires revocation.