SHASHI ADDI-CHEM INDUSTRIES Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' second appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the Plaintiff -respondent and ordering the recovery of Rs. 1,83,737.83 from the defendant -appellants.

(2.) APPELLANT No. 2 Raj Kumar Saxena, who was the sole proprietor of firm appellant No. 1 M/s Shashi Addi -Chem Industries, Faridabad, was an unemployed Chemical Engineer and in accordance with the Government's policy to rehabilitate such unemployed technically qualified individuals, raised a Term Loan of Rs. 47,000/ - besides obtaining a Cash Credit Book Debt Limit of Rs. 33,000/ - and cash Credit Hypothetication Limit of Rs. 50,000/ - from the Punjab National Bank (Hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on November 18, 1980. The requisite pronotes and agreements were duly executed on November 18, 1980, whereas a guarantee was also given by appellant No. 3 Smt. Savitri Devi on February 27, 1981. As the industrial unit fell into difficulty, it was unable to pay back the instalments of the loan as stipulated in the agreements with the result that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for recovery of the loan amount of about Rs. 1,83,737.83 inclusive of interest. While resisting the suit, the appellants admitted that Raj Kumar Saxena was the sole proprietor of the appellant -firm and had availed of the facilities from the bank and had also executed the relevant documents for that purpose. It was claimed that the amounts loaned by the Bank had been returned and that the statement of accounts that had been tendered in evidence did not reflect the correct position. It was also averred that the Industrial unit set up by appellant No. 1 was not viable for the reason that the Bank itself defaulted in the payment of instalments to it as per the agreements signed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : -

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It would be seen that at the initial stage an attempt had been made by the appellants to deny that any loan had been raised as a result of the agreements that had been signed but it has not been seriously disputed at the present stage, more particularly in the light of the finding of the courts below that though the entire amount of loan, which was to be paid to the appellants has not been paid, some instalments had in fact been given. In the written statement filed by appellant No. 2, the positive stand taken was that no amount had been paid but subsequently this extreme stand was toned down and it was stated that Exhibits P -15 to P -17 did not reflect the true position. It is, therefore, apparent that appellant No. 2 had taken a positive stand in the written statement with regard to the veracity of the statement of accounts Exhibits P -15 to P -17. In this situation, I am of the view that it was incumbent on the Bank to produce some other evidence besides the statement of accounts so as to show that the said accounts had been correctly maintained and reflected the true state of affairs. In the light of this legal position, it is apparent that the judgments below cannot be sustained.