PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. S K TULSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two suite brought under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff bank, the defendant in each suit has moved application for leave to defend the suit. As common questions of fact and law have been argued in both these matters, hence they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) In Suit No. 596 of 1986, the plaintiff bank has played for recovery of Rs. 36,17,5301- on the averments that defendant had obtained overdraft facility against his current account which Was opened on October 16, 1973 at the plaintiffs branch at H Block, Connaught Circus and in November, 1973, he was granted the said overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs against security of shares of various companies and in consideration of the same, the defendant executed a demand promissory note and various other documents enumerated in para 5 of the plaint. On December 31, 1976, the amount due in the said account was to the tune of Rs. 7,89,643.93, which was confirmed by the defendant in writing and defendant on June 30, 1977 executed fresh documents including a promissory note in consideration of the amount due on that date. On April 3, 1980, the amount due in that account was Rs. 12,76,001.33 and in consideration of the said amount, the defendant executed renewal documents, including a demand promissory note and on March 24. 1983, the amount due in the account was Rs. 22,14,392.10, which was confirmed by the defendant in writing and again in consideration of the said amount, the defendant executed fresh documents, including a demand promissory note It was pleaded that the defendant had pledged/mortgaged/charged 60,000 shares of M/s Madhusudan Limited (now known as Hindustan Transnmission Products Ltd.) and substantial shares of Laxmi Commercial Bank, now amalgamated with Canara Bank and 3,000 shares of M/s Mysore Chemical Works Ltd. The defendant had agreed that the shares could be sold by the bank for the repayment of its amount due. So it was pleaded that at the time of filing of the suit, the amount in suit became due which defendant had failed to pay. Hence a decree for the said amount and interest pendente lite and till realisation was prayed for.

(3.) In Suit No. 597 of 1986, it was pleaded that defendant was granted overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs and in consideration of the same, the defendant executed documents on 21st January, 1974, including a demand promissory note and other documents detailed out in para four of the plaint, in that account on December 31, 1976, Rs. 7,63,843.95 were due which balance was duly confirmed in writing by the defendant and on June 30, 1977, in consideration of the said balance amount, the defendant executed fresh loan documents, including the demand promissory -note. On 5th May, 1980, the amount due in the said account was Rs. 12,36,293.90, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant in writing and he executed fresh documents, including a demand promissory note in consideration of the said amount. On March 18, 1983, the amount due in that account was Rs. 16,54,0001- which was duly acknowledged in writing by the defendant and he executed fresh documents, in cluding a promissory note in consideration of the Daid subsisting amount. As security for repayment of the said amount, defendant had pledged 80,000 shares of M/s Madhusudan Limited, now known as Hindustan Transmission Products Ltd. 1295 shares of Laxmi Commercial Bank. now amulgamated with Canara Bank and 2,000 shares of M/s Mysore Chemical Works Ltd. It was pleaded that despite reminders and the notices, defendants has failed to pay the amount. Hence a decree was asked for recoverd of Rs. 25,33.768 along with costs and pendente lite interest and future interest.