BHUVANESHWARI Vs. CITY UNION BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.07.2010 in I.A.No.27 of 2010 in O.S.No.334 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Erode, in and by which, the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to effect post-trial amendment to the pleadings.

(2.) The suit has been filed by the revision petitioner herein and her late mother-in-law against the bank, the company, the legal representatives of the original Managing Director L.Gopala Krishnan and the elder brothers and daughters of the late Rajaram, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 5,36,84,545/- with accrued interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 2,54,55,000/- from date of suit till date of realisation.

(3.) The suit is proceeded on the premise that the plaintiff and her late husband, viz., Rajaram had started a partnership firm in the name and style of Raji Thangam Textile Processing Mill, which was thereafter converted into second defendant-Company. While the firm was still in existence on 18.01.1995, the plaintiff and her late husband had borrowed some money from the bank by executing promisory notes. They had availed loan from the Bank under the caption "Open Cash Credit" as well as "Term Loan". It is the case of the plaintiff that subsequently, the firm had converted into second defendant-Company. A Memorandum of Hypothecation was created after the death of her husband, as if he had hypothecated the assets in favour of the first respondent-Bank and had also created the Memorandum of Equitable Mortgage. These documents were denied by the revision petitioner. She would also contend that L.Gopala Krishnan was appointed as Chairman, post her husband's death, by active collusion with the Branch Manager of the first respondent-Bank and that they have been selling hypotheca without remitting the amounts into the Company's account and they have also not been remitting the profits into the Company's account. Thereafter, it appears that the winding up proceedings were initiated against the Company, and the Bank had also moved the recovery proceedings and added to that, they had received notices from the Excise Department and other Government Department for the dues incurred during the Chairmanship of the said Gopala Krishnan. The sum and substance of the plaint was that the Officials of the Bank and the said Gopala Krishnan colluded in depriving the second respondent-Company of its legal dues. Therefore, the suit has been filed.