LAWS(SC)-2003-5-37

SYNDICAT BANK Vs. RSR ENGINEERING WORKS

Decided On May 09, 2003
SYNDICATE BANK Appellant
V/S
R.S.R.ENGINEERING WORKS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appellant filed two suit against the respondents. First respondent in both the suits is a partnership firm engaged in engineering works. Respondent Nos. 2 4 are its partners. In the first suit, O.S. No. 1921/80 hich was filed for recovery of Rs. 59,775.95 with interest thereon, the plaintiff alleged that for the purpose of expansion of industry of the respondent, a loan of Rs. 40,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the respondents on 5.12.1974. The loan was be re-paid after 9 months in instalments. They respondents had also executed the requisite documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. spondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement admitted that the respondents had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from the appellant, but they contended that the first respondent firm was dissolved and the fourth respondent ok over the entire liability and, herefore, they are not liable for the suit claim. The Trial Court passed the decree only against Respondent-1 and Respondent-4 for the suit claim.

(2.) The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal No. 632/87 before the High Court and prayed that decree shall be passed against all the respondents as all of them had joint and several liability. This plea was rejected by the High Court and the High Court affirmed the decree of the trail court. Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No. 3765 f 1995 is filed.

(3.) In O.S. No. 1922/80 filed against these respondent, the plaintiff alleged that these respondents were given an overdraft facility the extent of Rs. 20,000/- by the appellant bank and that the respondent availed that facility and ommitted default in paying the amount due from them and, therefore, the appellant filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 35, 157,68/- with interest thereon. The respondents raised similar contention that the partnership was dissolved and the fourth respondent had taken over the entire liability and that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sod absolved of the suit liability. The Trial court accepted this contention and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Aggrieved and the same, the appellant filed a Regular First Appeal being RFA No. 631/87 before the High Court and the High Court affirmed the trial court decree by its judgment and aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 1995 is filed.