ROHIT JOSHI Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Delhi in a suit for recovery of money which the Court below has decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,37,170/- with interest @ 9% pendente lite and future. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE defendant-appellant appears to have approached the respondent-bank for an overdraft facility of Rs. 3. 37 lacs initially against the security of 300 shares of M/s DSQ Softwares which the defendant-appellant had pledged with the lender bank. In due course, the overdraft limit was raised to Rs. 5. 51/- lacs against 200 more shares of the very same company pledged to the plaintiff-respondent. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-borrower executed in favour of the bank an agreement of pledge of stock shares and other documents including an irrevocable power of attorney. The repayment of the loan amount by the appellant having become irregular, the bank appears to have intimated to the appellant its intention of selling the shares pledged with it. Three letters dated 8th June, 3rd July, and 3rd August, 2000 were issued by the bank to the appellant in that regard. The shares in question were eventually sold by the respondent-bank some time in December, 2000 @ Rs. 475/- per share and the sale proceeds thereof adjusted towards the liquidation of the amount outstanding against the appellant at that time. Since the entire amount payable by the appellant could not, despite the said adjustment, be liquidated the respondent bank filed O. S. No. 81/2006 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi for recovery of the same. The defendant-appellant appeared in the said suit and filed a written statement inter alia alleging that the bank had neglected the sale of the shares pledged with it and thereby caused substantial loss to the appellant which the bank was liable to reimburse to the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following five issues:

(3.) IN support of its case, the plaintiff-respondent examined PW-1, Sh. V. Krishnan and PW-2, Sh. C. M. Duggal whereas the defendant-appellant herein appeared as his own witness. By the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal, the Court below held all the issues framed by it in favour of the respondent-bank and decreed the suit in toto with interest @ 9% per annum pendente lite and till realization. The present appeal, as noted earlier, assails the correctness of the said judgment and decree.