STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. NARENDER ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank has filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.1,31,765.83 and further for a preliminary decree under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure for sale of the mortgaged property with interest at 12.5% from 30/6/1988 till realisation. It is further claimed that in case there is any shortfall to adjust the bank dues out of the sale proceeds of the properties mortgaged the plaintiff would be at liberty to recover the balance amount.

(2.) . The facts alleged are that Shri H.S.Thakural at the time when the suit was filed was the Branch Manager of Kamla Nagar Branch of the plaintiff and that he had been authorised to be the principal officer of the bank to file the suit. Defendant no.1 (Narender Anand) requested the plaintiff bank to grant him loan in the category of medium term loan facility for purposes of purchasing a new Tata diesel truck chassis model LPT 1210 SE/42 for fabrication of body on chassis and for purchase of extra tyres. Defendant no.1 had requested for a loan of Rs.1,85,000.00. On 29/6/1985 defendant no.1 was granted a cash credit limit of Rs.1,85,000.00 for purposes of purchasing a Tata diesel truck, fabrication of body and for purchase of extra tyres. Defendant no.1 opened a saving bank account no. 9029 with the plaintiff bank and availed the aforesaid medium term loan facility. Smt. Ram Piari stood as the guarantor along with defendant no.3 for payment of the money and the interest. For this purpose Ram Piari deposited title deeds of property no.A-115 Indra Nagar, Delhi with an intention to create an equitable mortgage by way of collateral security. Smt. Ram Piari had since died and defendants 2A to 2C are the legal representatives.

(3.) . The defendants had executed documents disclosing terms and conditions of the loan which included (a) agreement for medium term loan hypothecation of vehicles which was executed by defendant no.1 (b) transport operators 3rd party guarantee agreement of the same date executed by Smt. Ram Piari (c) transport operators 3rd party guarantee agreement of the same date executed by defendant no.3 (d) undertaking of 29/6/1985 by defendant no.1 (e) letter of 29/6/1985 written by defendant no.2 for issuing the cheque for Rs.1,93,487.00. The said medium term loan was repayable in 40 instalments of Rs.4,625.00. commencing from 15/9/1985 besides interest. Defendant no.1 is alleged to have committed default in repayment and did not adhere to financial discipline. The amount withdrawn by defendant no.3 were duly debited in the account. On 15/1/1987 defendant no.1 promised the plaintiff to regularise the position. He also acknowledged the liability by executing a confirmation slip on 17/2/1988 thereby confirming the balance amount of Rs.1,29,514.65. It is claimed that amount has not been paid besides the interest. Hence the present suit.