STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SIOLEX CUSTINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank of India has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1.3.97 passed in Money Suit No. 10 of 1994 by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, decreeing the suit of the appellant only for an amount of Rs. 3,82,923.63 against the claim of Rs. 21,28,341.99 which includes principal loan amount and interest thereon calculated upto 30.11.94.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the first respondent M/s Solex Castings, a Firm owned by the second respondent Dipak Chandra Roy was registered as a Small Scale Industry (SSI). The second respondent applied for loan to the appellant-Bank which was duly considered and on 28.12.82 an amount of Rs.5,08,000/- was sanctioned. On 14.5.86, the Bank and the second respondent executed an agreement after the credit facility was enhanced to Rs. 9.67 lakhs. As per the terms of the agreement, the second respondent placed at the disposal of the appellant-Bank 4 postal assurance policies valued at Rs. 5000-each and executed other relevant documents. It may be noted here that credit facility was enhanced on the prayer of the second respondent on 16.7.85, 9.9.85 and 24.11.85 When the credit facility was enhanced on 13.5.86, all the balance amount in the old account was transferred to the new account and documents were executed to cover the enhanced facility. The break up of this enhanced facility as stated in the plaint was Rs. 3.50 lakhs on cash credit, Rs. 2.66 lakhs on clean cash credit, Rs. 3.01 lakhs on term loan and Rs. 0.50 lakhs on EFS limit. The third and fourth respondents being the brothers of the second respondent were the guarantors for the amount of loan sanctioned by the Bank. That apart, vehicle No. TRA-1743 was mortgaged as security by the fourth respondent. The loan was sanctioned to enable the Firm to manufacture Tube well pump, C.I. Soil pipe, Manhole cover, C.I. Cooking pan and for other products of Castings and General engineering. The allegation against the second respondent is that in violation of the terms of agreement he did not pay the loan by instalments and on the contrary open a new account without the knowledge of the appellant in Agartala Branch of the appellant-Bank where the sale proceeds were deposited and from that account he had withdrawn Rs. 6,53,648/- on different dates from 19.7.89 to 14.8.91. The failure of the second respondent to repay the loan and interest in terms of the agreement compelled the appellant-Bank to file the money suit for recovery of an accumulated amount of Rs. 21,28,341.99 calculated as on 30.11.94.

(3.) The first and second respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement admitting the principal loan amount received by him and the interest thereon upto 30.11.94 as claimed in the plaint. But they contended that they were not responsible for the failure to repay the said loan which was partly attributable to the Bank itself and mostly attributable to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Director of Industries and the State of Tripura respec'tively. The grounds of non-payment of the loan amount as advanced in the pleadings, inter alia, are :-