UPASANA FINANCE LIMITED Vs. TRISHNA ENGINEERING WORKS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION No.2806 of 1999 was for an order of conditional attachment of the property of the respondent/3rd defendant.

(2.) ON 10.8.2000, an order of attachment was passed. The third defendant has taken out Application No.5300 of 2000 for raising the attachment made in Application No.2806 of 1999. In support of the application, it is stated as follows: At the time of granting the bill discounting facility, it was agreed that the interest rate would be only 24% per annum. the bill discounting facility to a maximum limit of Rs.50 lakhs was granted as a common facility for both Trishna Engineering Works and Archana Agencies (Firm). At the time of granting the said facility, the applicant/plaintiff obtained the signatures of the respondent/3rd defendant in blank papers and has used those documents by filing them up without the knowledge of the third defendant. The only guarantee given was that the title documents of the property belonging to the fourth defendant, situate at 11, Krishnappa Chetty Street, Chennai-2, would be collateral security. The third defendant has repaid substantial portion of the bill discounted and it is false to allege that the plaintiff has discounted the bills for a total sum of Rs.20 lakhs. The first defendant notified the plaintiff not to present the said cheques in the bank for collection since there was a bona fide dispute regarding the rate of interest. The third defendant is also defending the proceedings of the plaintiff under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The defendants never agreed for the delayed financial charges at the rate of 48% per annum on monthly compounding basis. The sixth defendant and no amount can be claimed from the sixth defendant. The plaintiff, in addition to the present claim, has made a separate claim for Rs.24,56,164 against the sixth defendant, which is illegal. The plaintiff is bound to explain and prove how the sixth defendant is liable to pay the alleged amount. It is not correct to say that the plaintiff does not have any substantial guarantee for the alleged due amount. The house property belonging to the fourth defendant at No.11, Krishnappa Chetty Street, Chennai is the collateral security and before granting the financial facility, the plaintiff verified the value of the property by a Licensed Surveyor. ONly after the determination of the market value of the property, the said financial facility was granted to the tune of 60% of the value of the property. The plaintiff has made misleading statement undervaluating the said property so as to get unlawful claim over the property belonging to the fourth defendant. It is not correct to say that the said property has been given as collateral security with the plaintiff for another firm of the defendants. The property belonging to the fourth defendant, which is sought to be attached, has already been given as collateral security to State Bank of India. The plaintiff has intentionally undervalued the property, already given by the fourth respondent as collateral security. In these circumstances, attachment, already ordered, has to be raised.