LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-77

LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD Vs. AULJOTHI FIBRE INDUSTRIES

Decided On April 13, 2007
THE LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THIRUPUR KUMARAN ROAD, THIRUPUR Appellant
V/S
AULJOTHI FIBRE INDUSTRIES, BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR M. SHANMUGHAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the judgment dated 29.03.1994 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruppur, in O.S.No.205 of 1990, in dismissing the money claim of the plaintiff Bank made against the respondent/defendant, who, according to the bank, has borrowed a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- on 13.06.1986 on the necessary documents filed therefor. Now, the plaint claim along with contractural interest comes to Rs.9,09,932/-.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant/plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff Bank for credit facilities for construction of buildings and for purchase of machineries for carrying on fibre industries at Alagumalai and a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- was sanctioned and paid to the defendant by way of term loan on 13.06.1986. In this connection, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had executed a promissory note Ex.A-1 for the said sum on the same date, namely, 13.06.1986 agreeing to repay the same to the plaintiff bank with interest at 13.5% per annum.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement contended that there was no intention to create an equitable mortgage and at no point of time, he has placed the documents with the Manager of the plaintiff bank in order to create an equitable mortgage in their favour. He would further submit that only a xerox copy of the partition deed dated 04.03.1970 has been taken from the defendant. But it is very important to note that under what circumstances the documents have been placed before the bank authority was not adduced by the defendant. THE further contention of defendant would be that in the standard forms, his signatures were taken by the Manager of the plaintiff bank and as such, no amount was due from him as there was no actual borrowal. This aspect has been so developed in the course of evidence of the defendant.