SANGLI BANK LIMITED Vs. KANISHKA INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Bank suit for recovering a sum of Rs. 59, 33, 000/- and odd from the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the directors of defendant No. 1 and they are the guarantors in their personal capacity. Four different facilities were granted by the plaintiff-Bank to the defendants. First was a secured term loan facility against hypothecation of the vehicle with a limit of Rs. 3, 41, 000/-; second was a term loan facility against mortgage of land and building with a limit of Rs. 18, 42, 000/-; third was again a term loan facility against hypothecation of machinery with a limit of Rs. 4, 42, 000/- and fourth facility was secured term loan facility against hypothecation of machinery with a limit of Rs. 4, 30, 000/ -. According to the Bank, the defendants had executed all the necessary documents in favour of the plaintiffs-Bank in respect of all these facilities and executed simple mortgage and lease and guarantee etc. as per the details given in the plaint. Further the defendants executed four separate letters of acknowledgments of dated 17-2-1992 in respect of the aforesaid four facilities. But the defendants, even though availing of the facilities, failed and neglected to repay the amount due under the aforesaid facilities, and therefore, the plaintiffs Bank gave a letter dated 3-9-1994 calling upon the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 55, 54, 597. 45 together with interest thereon. But the defendants did not pay anything thereafter, and hence, the present suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs. 59,30,554/-

(2.) THE defendants have raised various defence. Firstly, according to them, there is concealment and suppression of material facts. Secondly, according to them, the plaintiffs-Bank filed this suit as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the defendants before the Consumers Dispute Redressal Federation, Maharashtra State for the deficiencies in services rendered by the plaintiffs, where the Commissioner was pleased to grant damages of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- and costs of Rs. 2, 000/- to the defendants. The Bank preferred an appeal before the National Commissioner and the matter was remanded after awarding costs of Rs. 10, 000/- to the defendants. Thereafter the defendants filed complaint before the Commissioner in Maharashtra wherein order was passed on 12-3-1997 that such a dispute could not be entertained in summary way and the Civil Court would proper to decide those disputes, and the complaint of the defendants was dismissed. However, the defendants could not make counter claim in respect of the loss and damages suffered by them because their business came to a standstill before six years back i. e. in 1991-92.

(3.) HOWEVER, according to the defendants, the plaintiff Bank is violating guidelines and norms prescribed and laid down by the Reserve Bank of India and the plaintiffs-Bank has claimed and charged interest contrary to those guidelines and circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India. Further according to defendants, on all the documents like letter of balance confirmation, letter of continuing security, promissory note etc. , the signatures of the defendants were taken in blank, and that the entire statement of accounts annexed by the plaintiffs in respect of the four accounts mentioned in the plaint are false, fabricated and manipulated and the plaintiffs Bank has arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the terms and conditions which were granted by the Board of Directors of the plaintiffs Bank that the interest is charged at the rate of Rs. 23. 75% p. a. instead of Rs. 12. 5% p. a. and this was against the circular issued by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD ).