BANK OF MADURA LIMITED Vs. MANINDER SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,06,799.60 against the defendants, named above. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a Banking Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at 33, North Chitrai Street, Madurai, Central Office at 758, Anna Salai, Madras and amongst others one of its Branches at F-144, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and that Shri P.L. Muthiah, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank at Rajouri Garden Branch, is one of the principal officers of the plaintiff-Bank who is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank.

(2.) Since the defendants did not care to appear despite service they were directed to be proceeded ex-parte in the present proceedings vide order dated 26.7.94 and 23.2.95.

(3.) The plaintiff-Bank in support of its case has filed the affidavit by way-of evidence of Shri Pazhaniappan, Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank of its F-144, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi. Said Shri Pazhaniappan in his affidavit dated the 29th August, 1985 has supported the case of the plaintiff-Bank and has also proved and exhibited the material documents. The evidence of Shri Pazhaniappan, adduced by way of affidavit, has gone on record unrebutted and unchallenged. which I see no reason to disbelieve. On the basis of the facts, as disclosed by Shri Pazhaniappan in his affidavit, it is established that on a request, made by defendant No. 1, the plaintiff-Bank sanctioned a 'secured loan' of Rs. 2,50,000.00 in favour of the defendant No. 1 for the purchase of a Truck. It is further established that as per the terms of the sanction the truck to be purchased by the defendant was to be hypothecated and the loan was further to be collaterly secured by the extension of hypothecation of the charges of the plaintiff-Bank on the vehicles already hypothecated against the advance of supply bills for Rs. l,00,000.00 given to M/s Golden Transport Agency. It is also established that in consideration of grant of sanction and availing of the said loan, defendant No. I executed a Demand Promissory Note (Exhibit PW-1/3) for Rs. 2.5 lacs; an agreements of hypothecation (Ex.PW-1/5, Ex.PW-1/6 & Ex. PW-1/7); a letter of extension (Exhibit PW-1/8), extending the charge on vehicles bearing Nos. URG 3825 and DEL 2343. It is further established that defendants No. 2 & 3 have stood as a surety for the repayment of the amount of loan by defendant No. 1 and in that connection they executed letters of guarantee (Exhibit PW-1/9 and Exhibit PW-1/10) in favour of the plaintiff-Bank. Letter, addressed by defendant No. 1 dated the 24th June, 1990, acknowledging the liability, which is Exhibit PW-1/11 also stands proved. The other material documents i.e. revival of guarantee letters (Exhibit PW-1 /13 and Exhibit PW-1 /14) also stand proved, On, the basis of the ex-parte evidence adduced by the plaintiff-Bank by means of affidavit of Shri Pazhaniappan, Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank and other material on record it is established that a sum of Rs. 6,06,799.60 is due and payable by the defendants jointly and severely to the plaintiff-Bank together with costs and interest.