LAWS(CAL)-2025-2-26

SANDEEP GOENKA Vs. YES BANK

Decided On February 17, 2025
Sandeep Goenka Appellant
V/S
Yes Bank Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the refusal of an ad interim prayer of injunction made by the plaintiff in a suit, inter alia, for declaration that the plaintiff/appellant is having 50% ownership right, title and interest in the suit property, a declaration that the claim asserted by the defendant no.1-Bank in its letter dated September 3, 2024 that loan and/or credit facility was granted in favour of the plaintiff is false, incorrect and non est in the eye of law, a declaration that the claim of equitable mortgage made by the defendant no.1-Bank in respect of the plaintiff's 50% share of in the suit property is false, incorrect and non est, for declaration that written instruments being an agreement dated January 14, 2021, memorandum of entry dated February 15, 2021 and other documents relating to loan and/or credit facilities as referred to in the letter dated September 3, 2024 are void and be delivered up and cancel, and for perpetual injunction protecting the possession for the plaintiff in respect of the said property as well as restraining the defendant no.1 from alienating and/or creating any third party interest in respect of 50% ownership right for the plaintiff in the said property.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is devoid of reasons.

(3.) It is submitted that although in its letter dated September 3, 2024, the defendant no.1-Bank claims that the plaintiff/appellant and his brother, Hari Ram Goenka (since deceased), proprietor of Shree Bajrang Bhandar, jointly applied for loan/credit facility, the loan agreement does not contain any signature of the plaintiff. It is further argued that the memorandum of entry dated February 15, 2021 also contains no signature of either the appellant or the said Hari Ram. Furthermore, a magisterial declaration has been alleged to be executed by the owners of the property, namely, the appellant and the said Hari Ram, which declaration was, however, never produced in the court below.