Kiran Atapattu v. Pan Asia Bank Limited – sllr 2005 volume 2 page 276

The case between Pan Asia Bank Limited and Kiran Atapattu addressed whether funds obtained through overdraft facilities qualify as “debt” under Section 30 of the Debt Recovery (Special Provisions) Act. It was held that an overdraft, provided the principal and interest are ascertainable at the commencement of action, constitutes a recoverable debt within the statute. The reasoning reaffirmed the principle that compound interest may be recovered according to contemporary legal and banking practice if there is express or implied agreement. The admissibility of computer-generated bank records was established under the Evidence Ordinance when accompanied by an appropriate affidavit. The application for unconditional leave to defend was rejected since technical objections such as omission of the