CITI BANK Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal, the appellant Bank has assailed the impugned judgment and decree dated 20. 9. 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, by which the suit instituted by the appellant Bank against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,17,841/- was dismissed ex-parte on the ground that the appellant Bank had failed to prove that the loan documents and other related documents executed by the respondent were accepted on behalf of the appellant Bank.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case as set out in the plaint instituted by the appellant Bank, are that the appellant Bank introduced a scheme known as "citimobile FINANCE SCHEME" so as to finance buying of motor vehicles by persons fulfilling certain conditions as laid down in the scheme. The respondent approached the appellant Bank under the said Scheme, with a request to grant him a loan to purchase a car on the terms and conditions as prescribed by the appellant Bank. The appellant Bank agreed to advance a sum of rs. 1,68,000/- to the respondent. In consideration of securing the aforesaid loan, the respondent executed a Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 26. 6. 1992, an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 26. 6. 1992 and a Promissory note in favour of the appellant Bank.

(3.) IT was averred by the appellant Bank that the respondent undertook to clear the principal amount of the loan and interest thereon in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 6,418/- each. The respondent also agreed to pay interest @ 1. 25% p. a. above the citibank prime rates prevailing from time to time, subject to a minimum of 16% p. a. calculated at quarterly rests. Thereafter, the respondent in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, signed 36 post dated cheques of Rs. 6,418/- each towards the principal as well as interest amount and delivered the same to the appellant bank. The appellant Bank presented the cheques for encashment, but none of them were honoured. Rather, they were returned with the remarks, "funds not sufficient". As the respondent defaulted in repaying the loan to the appellant bank, a legal notice was served on him. As he did not come forward to repay the loan, the appellant Bank instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,17,841/-, along with interest against the respondent.