ESPEE AGENCIES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed the suit O. S. No. 622 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Sub Court , trichy, for recovery of a sum of more than Rs. 1 crore in all. In the plaint, the plaintiff has also prayed for a direction to sell the mortgage properties shown in Schedule' 'A' 'to the plaint and the hypothecated property shown in Schedule' 'B' 'to the plaint without prejudice to the plaintiff's right of seizure and to auction the same either by way of private treaty or by way of public auction. THE petitioners who are the defendants in the suit have not yet filed the written statement in the suit though it is nearly a year from the date of filing of the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed I. A. No. 489 of 1992 for appointment of a Receiver to take inventory of the stock-in-trade and other assets of the defendants and to take possession and auction the same and to remit the sale proceeds into court to the credit of the suit. THE application was opposed by the petitioners. Ultimately, the parties made a joint endorsement on 12. 10. 1992 as follows: "the respondents are willing to surrender all the stocks of their business mentioned in items 1,2 (a), 3 (a) and 4 as mentioned in the petition. THE stocks are available "now at C-95, Fort Station Road , Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirapalli-17. THE date of surrender is on 14. 10. 1992 at 8 a. m. Both Advocates should take inventory and sign the surrender of stock statement list. " Pursuant to the said joint endorsement, the stocks were inventoried and handed over to the plaintiff on 14. 10. 1992. THE petitioners set out the value of the goods in the inventory as Rs. 3,26,023. 79 in all. THE plaintiff protested against the same and made an endorsement that it has not accepted the value of the goods given by the petitioners herein and without prejudice to the other rights of the plaintiff, the goods were taken over by it on that date.

(3.) THE third contention is that the Bank being in custody of the goods should not be permitted to sell the same and they should keep it as security till the suit is disposed. It is also argued that the Bank is also having security in the shape of immovable properties which are described in schedule' 'A' 'to the plaint and there is no necessity for the sale of the goods at this stage. THEre is no merit in this contention as the clear statement of the bank is that the securities are not sufficient to meet the amount due to the bank. THE defendants have not chosen to file a written statement till now setting out the amounts which are due to the bank accord-ing to them or furnish the total value of the security. In the circumstances, this contention is rejected.