FIRM HUSSAIN BROTHERS AND CO Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR RAJASTHAN BHADOHI BRANCH BHADOHI DIST VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. This is not an issue in which the Court would like to interfere. In two matters the Court has already expressed its views that the time has come that the High Court must take a fresh look on loans which are given by the nationalised banks and the recoveries are challenged by the debtors on the mode of realisation of it.

(2.) IN this case, on one aspect there is no issue that there is a loan which remains undischarged consequently leaving the position of an admitted debt which will have to be paid to the creditor, the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, the respondent. If all such amounts of admitted loans not discharged to the banks are put together all over the nation regarding matters on which stay or ders were granted by Courts it will reveal a staggering amount. It is the view of the Court (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7313 of 1994, Plastic Audyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd. , 265 G. . I. C. Road, Bareilly v. The Collector/m. Bareilly & others, decided on 11-9-1996) that the stay orders granted by Courts preventing steps for the recovery of ad mitted debts as loans may have also con tributed to the deficit financing of the nation's economy. This case is one of those.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that there was some difficulty in discharging the loan for personal reasons and other causes of payments not received from foreign buyers. THE petitioners admit that of any payment which was to be received from the pur chasers abroad, there was an arrangement that should payment be received it would be tendered to the Bank direct to discharge the debit against the loan. In commerce all these are arrangements where invoices or bills of lading are treated as negotiable in struments and are cleared through the Bank. THE consignment is held by the Bank unless payment is received.