UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. DURGA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit for recovery of Rs 2,56,486 35 (Rupees two lacs fifty six thousand four hundred eighty six and paisa 35 only) has been filed by the plaintiff -bank against the present defendants. The case put up by the plaintiff has been that defendant No.1 applied to the plaintiff bank at its Dhundhan Branch for the grant of a truck loan in order to augment his business of transporter. Defendant No.2, at the behest and instance of defendant No.1, voluntarily came forward and joined defendant No. 1 and agreed to stand guarantee in favour of the bank qua the loan to be sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1. It was further pleaded that on the strength of the guarantee executed by defendant No. 2 and also on representation of defendant No. 1 the plaintiff -Bank sanctioned a truck loan facility of Rs. 1,40,000 in favour of defendant No. 1 and, as such, defendants No.1 and 2 executed a duly stamped memorandum of agreement dated 5th January, 1981 in favour of the plaintiff bank evidencing the aforesaid loan sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 which was duly availed of by defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, in the said memorandum of agreement, the defendants agreed to repay the truck loan of Rs. 1,40,000 to the plaintiff -bank in equal monthly instalments, that is, in thirty equal monthly instalments alongwith interest at the rate of 12 -1/2 per cent per annum with quarterly rests for value received. The first such instalment was to commence from the month of February 1981 and each subsequent instalment was to be paid by the defendants on or before 1st of each and every succeeding calendar month. At that very time defendant No. 1 also executed agreement relating to term loan dated 5th January, 1982.

(2.) The plaintiffs further case has been that the above referred truck loan was utilized by defendant No 1 for the purchase of truck bearing Engine No. 692 Dol 031618, chassis No. 34407 30 29840 Make and Model TDV 1978, which was given registration No. HPA 875 It was further pleaded that the defendants failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and continued to violate the financial discipline of the Bank and in this behalf the defendants were several times called upon by the plaintiff -bank to liquidate their liability but to no avail. The plaintiff -bank finally se? t a legal demand notice to the defendants on 18th September, 1984 but to no avail It was also averred that as per the statement of accounts filed with the plaint, duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 1,88,806 was due from the defendants to the plaintiff -bank inclusive of interest upto 31 -12 -1984 The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were liable to pay interest from 1 -1 -1985 to 20 -6 1987 which amount of interest comes to Rs 67,680 35 and hence the present suit for recovery of Rs. 2,56,486.35,

(3.) The plaintiff -bank also pleaded that defendant No. 1 called on it on 23 -10 -1982 and executed a duly stamped balance confirmation and admitted and acknowledged that a sum of Rs 1,38,424.83 was due which amount was inclusive of interest upto 27 -6 -1982. According to the plaintiff -bank, similarly the first defendant again called on the plaintiff -bank on 23 -6 -1984 and admitted and acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 1,65,120.34 was due to the plaintiff -bank inclusive of interest upto December 1983. The said balance confirmation letters have been filed with the plaint.