DENA BANK Vs. NILESH KARUNAKAR SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, the plaintiff seeks to recover sum of Rs.4,65,768.94 with interest and cost. The suit has been filed on the basis of promissory note, loan agreement, letter of lien and letter of guarantee filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 3. The defendant no. 4 has been joined as formal party. No relief has been claimed against the 4 th defendant.

(2.) According to plaintiff, defendant no. 1 who is son of defendant no. 2 wanted to secure admission for G.P. Rating Cadet Course 51 months with International Maritime Academy, Chennai and applied for a loan of Rs.3,51,000/-. Defendant no. 2 was co-borrower. Defendant no. 3 is sued as guarantor. Defendant no. 4 is training provider company. According to plaintiff on the defendant nos. 1 to 3 executing various documents in respect of education loan, the plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.3,51,000/- in favour of first defendant. According to plaintiff, fourth defendant by its letter dated 12 th October, 2004 addressed to the plaintiff bank introduced themselves as one of the leading consultants for Merchant Navy in India for over five years. By the said letter the fourth defendant guaranteed sponsorship for the students for 36 months on board ship training. It was mentioned that total fees charged for the said training was Rs.3,61,000/-. It was mentioned that the stipend to be earned by the students during 36 months ranges from 600 $ to 1000 $.

(3.) The Plaintiff by Advocates Notice dated 2 nd November 2006 and 15 th July, 2008 called upon defendant nos.1 to 3 to pay Rs.4,28,219/-. In the said notice, it is admitted that the Bank had disbursed the said amount directly to fourth defendant as the fourth defendant was sponsorer having represented to the bank for granting the said loan to defendant nos. 1 to 3. By the said notice the plaintiff finally called upon the defendants to pay Rs.4,28,219/- under the said education loan to the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 by their advocates letter dated 4 th December, 2006 informed the plaintiff that no amount was due and payable by defendant nos.1 to 3 to the plaintiff. The defendants also requested the plaintiff to initiate criminal action against fourth defendant and also staff of the plaintiff bank who were responsible for sanction of the said loan without looking into the credibility of the fourth defendant.