SYNDICATE BANK A BANKING COMPANY CONSTITUTED UNDER (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS ACT) 1970 WITH ITS H.O. MANIPAL AND A BRANCH AT GANDHINAGAR, KNOWN AS GANDHINAGAR BARNCH REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER SRI. RAVINDRANATH Vs. SRI DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff in OS. No. 751/1999 on the file of XXIX Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore, has come up in this first appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2006 passed therein. 2. Brief facts leading to this first appeal are as under. Appellant herein is a nationalised bank having one of its branches at Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore -9. The present suit is filed by the Manager of said Bank for recovery of certain arrears said to be due from respondent herein under four different loan accounts in his name.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute in this proceedings are that, the respondent herein was an officer of appellant bank. Prior to 15.6.1989 he was working as Deputy Divisional Manager. That certain allegations were there against respondent, in that behalf notices were issued to him calling for explanation, which resulted in respondent resigning from his post in the appellant bank w.e.f., 15.6.1989. While respondent was in service, he had availed the aforesaid four loan facilities in the following manner:

(3.) THE aforesaid adjustment by appellant bank without concurrence of respondent was objected to by him. In that behalf, he lodged a complaint against appellant Bank before Banking Ombudsmen. Simultaneously writ petition was also filed by him in WP. No. 15576/1989 challenging withholding of documents of title of respondent's property as security for the outstanding amount alleged to be due to bank. He also filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 15647/1989 challenging the right of appellant to adjust the amount standing to his credit in his overdraft account towards alleged loan due from him. The writ petitions were defended by appellant herein. Ultimately, writ petition in W.P. No. 15576/1989 came to be allowed, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that action of appellant bank, its General Manager, the Custodian Employees Provident Fund and as well as the Custodian of Gratuity Fund were not justified in making payment of said amount to appellant bank and appellant bank in adjusting the same against the alleged loan due from respondent is arbitrary.