UCO BANK Vs. LACHHMAN DASS POPLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff UCO Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,1970 having its Head office at Calcutta and its Zonal office at Parliament Street, New Delhi and one of the branches at Sadar Bazar, Delhi has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.6,69,335.00 against the defendants. The defendant is the sole proprietor of M/s Popli Traders, 2557, Swaran Gali, Teliwara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The defendant had opened his current account on 7/10/1982 with the Sadar Bazar branch of the plaintiff bank in his business name M/s Popli Traders under his sole proprietorship. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank allowed temporary overdraft facility in his current account against the fixed deposit receipts which he availed." On 19/1/1991, an overdraft of Rs.7,35,313.83 paise was shown in defendant's account, out of which defendant availed temporary overdraft facility limit of Rs.4,80,000.00 against FDRs of Rs.6,19,000.00. The defendant executed a pronote for Rs.4,80,000.00 repayable with interest at the rate of 2% per annum above the deposit rate subject to minimum rate of interest of 12% per annum with quarterly rests. His promissory note was kept as security for the payment of ultimate balance sum remaining unpaid on the overdraft facility provided to the defendant. The defendant's letter dated 19/1/1991 showed the deposit of FDRs amounting to Rs.5,09,000.00. The plaintiff bank was also authorised to appropriate the FDRs handed over to them as security towards adjustment of loan granted to M/s Popli Traders.

(2.) Two separate letters dated 19/1/1991 were also signed by the defendant Showing the deposit of FDRs of Rs.65,000.00 and Rs.45,000.00 respectively. Thus, total FDRs worth Rs.6,19,000.00 were deposited with the plaintiff bank. On 23/1/1991, on defendant's depositing a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00, the amount of overdraft was reduced to Rs.4,35,313.83 paise. Again on 30/9/1991, the defendant's account reflected an overdraft of Rs. 9,90,117.23 paise. Against this overdraft, the plaintiff bank credited a sum of Rs.6,89,290.90 paise being the proceeds of the FDRs reducing the overdraft balance to Rs.3,00,826.23 paise. Despite repeated requests of the plaintiff bank, when defendant failed to adjust the overdraft account, he was served with a legal notice dated 23/6/1992 to make the payment of the overdraft with interest. The defendant failed to make the payment despite the service of legal notice. The plaintiff accordingly filed the present suit on the basis of defendants account with them showing an overdraft of Rs. 6,69,335.00 on 12/10/1992.

(3.) Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant but when he could not be served through ordinary process, he was served through 'substituted service by publication in a newspaper. But despite service defendant failed to put in appearance and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Evidence of the plaintiff was therefore, taken by way of affidavits. The plaintiff filed affidavits of V.N. KakKar, Senior Manager of Sadar Bazar Branch of plaintiff bank as on the date of filing of the affidavit whereas of P.N. Handa, Manager and of vijender Kumar, Senior Manager of the bank at the relevant time. An additional affidavit of R.K. Mehra, who was the Senior Manager of the said branch of the bank in September,1998, was also filed by way of evidence.