PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. COMMISSIONER SANCHAITA INVESTMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated January 20, 1990, passed by the learned Commissioner, Sanchaita Investments, Calcutta, in the claim case filed by and on behalf of the Punjab National Bank against Sanchaita Investments. The brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the appellant-Punjab National Bank filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner for Sanchaita Investments (hereinafter to be called as "the Commissioner") with respect to the demand of the appellant-bank for a sum of Rs. 26,50,000. It appears that Sanchaita Investments (hereinafter to be called "the company") under an agreement dated May 11, 1981, agreed to purchase the 5th floor of a multi-storeyed building at No. 113, Park Street, Calcutta, along with car parking spaces for a consideration of Rs. 28,71,000 from one M/s. Anandi Lal Poddar and Sons Limited. The said transaction was completed after the aforesaid amount is stated to have been paid by the company to the aforesaid Anandi Lal Poddar and Sons Ltd. It is also stated that the possession of the property in question was taken over by the company in due course.

(2.) The company at the relevant time was operating a bank account, being Current Account No. 811 with the Dharamtalla Branch of the appellant-bank. The company approached the appellant-bank on February 2, 1982, for granting to itself the overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 39,00,000 in the said current account. The appellant-bank agreed to the grant of the aforementioned overdraft facility to the company against the security of the right, title and interests of the company in the aforesaid property, which had accrued in its favour by virtue of the aforesaid agreement dated May 11, 1981. It is the admitted case of the parties that on the company availing of the aforesaid overdraft facility, the appellant did pay to the company a sum of Rs. 26,50,000 through the aforesaid current account and that the company promised to liquidate the said debt within a period of 30 days from the date of granting of the overdraft facility.

(3.) Because of the non-repayment of the aforesaid amount the appellant-bank initiated legal proceedings against the company. Various proceedings went on between the appellant-bank and the company, both in this court as well as before the Supreme Court. The appellant's claim in respect of the property in question was negatived by a Division Bench of this court vide its judgment dated December 20, 1984, in Matter No. 698 of 1984 wherein this court was of the view that the company was not divested of its right, title and interest arising out of the sale deed dated May 11, 1981, or the benefits accruing thereunder and, therefore, the appellant-bank was not entitled to raise any claim in respect of the aforesaid property. The main thrust was on the non-registration of the agreement which had been executed between the company and the appellant. The Division Bench was of the view that since the agreement was not registered, no right flowed in favour of the appellant in relation to the aforesaid property. The operative part of the judgment read thus :