SARANJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also dispose of first appeal no. 3/87.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent Punjab National Bank filed the suit against Shaikh Umar, Shankar Lal, Saranjit Singh and Vishnupuri for recovery of Rs. 1,36,775.75/ - inter alia pleading that Shaikh Umar and Shankar Lal had taken a term loan of Rs. 60,000/ - and a cash credit loan of Rs. 25,000/ -. According to the plaintiff Bank on 8.2.80 Shaikh Umar and Shankar Lal who were real brothers had started Umar Soda Water Factory for preparation of Soda Water, pea -cola, Tanza, Special soda, turu lemon. On 8.2.80, defendant no. 1 and 2 had taken term loan of Rs. 25,000/ - and another loan of Rs. 25,000/ - under cash credit hypothecation agreement. It was also submitted that the documents were executed on 8.2.80 and later on 28.3 80, the defendants no. 1 and 2 executed two agreements, one for Rs. 60,000/ - and another for Rs. 25,000/ -. The defendant no. 1 and 2 had admitted that they would pay the interest at the rate of 14% with quarterly rest it was further submitted that defendant no. 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the defendant no. 1 and 2 and executed the required documents. According to the plaintiff as the defendant no. 1 and 2 did not pay the amounts due, therefore, they were forced to file the suit for recovery of the amounts. According to them, under the term loan account, they were entitled to Rs. 1,01,167.65/ -, under cash credit hypothecation account 35,568.10/ - and Rs. 50/ - towards advertisement charges. The plaintiff also submitted that various other documents were executed by the principal debtors i.e. defendant no. 1 and 2 and the guarantors i.e. defendant no. 3 and 4.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed various issues. After recording the evidence and bearing the parties, the learned Court below held that Omprakash Kapoor was omitted to file the suit for and on behalf of the bank; the defendant no. 1 and 2 had taken the loan and had executed the documents. The Court also held that the defendant no. 1 and 2 left Chhatarpur without any information to anybody. The trial Court also held that on 6.6.83, the bank manager Omprakash Kapoor had put lock on the main gate of the factory. It also held that no manufacturing activities were going on when the lock was put, but at the same time the trial Court also held that the bank manager did not make proper arrangements for the safety of the goods and the factory. The trial Court, however, held that the theft was not committed as a result of carelessness of the bank manager, though it held that while putting the lock the list of the articles and inventories were not made. It, however, held that the bank manager did put the lock on the premises, but he did not take possession of the factory and the goods. The trial Court, in view of its findings, granted a decree for recovery of the suit amount against defendant no. 1 and 2, but, however, limited the liability to the extent of Rs. 90,000/ - against the guarantors defendant no. 3 and 4.