T.A. 110 of 2002. Case: Allahabad Bank Vs Chandra Finance and Sons and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberT.A. 110 of 2002
Party NameAllahabad Bank Vs Chandra Finance and Sons and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: R.S. Tewari, Adv. and For Respondents: None
JudgesD.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 2 and 19(1); Evidence Act - Section 21; Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 21(2)
CitationIII (2004) BC 31
Judgement DateAugust 26, 2002
CourtKolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Judgment:

D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. Mr. R.S. Tewari, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank.

    The learned Receiver has submitted the report which is known as the Receiver's Report.

  2. The learned Receiver is directed to serve the copies of such report upon all parties concerned.

  3. None appears for the respondents.

  4. In presence of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank the Receiver's Report has been opened and the same has been accepted; and let it be kept with the record.

  5. Mr. Tewari, the learned Advocate has submitted in extenso, for the reason of making absolute the interim reliefs granted to the applicant Bank by order No. 42. But the learned Advocate has submitted also for making successful the Section 19 application preferred by the applicant Bank against the four respondents on December 13, 1994 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,11,800.50 p. against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and/or severally; and for other reliefs. The submission made by the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank has carried this Tribunal to the first day when the applicant Bank received one application from the respondent No. 2 for being sanctioned loan worth of Rs. 17 lakhs and odd. For the reason of carrying out all hire purchase business, which is, in fact, carried out by the respondent No. 1 being a proprietorship entity, the said application was made on August 6, 1991 by Smt. M. Bose (hereinafter being referred to as the 'respondent No. 2') which was in fact for the necessary working capital to be furnished by the applicant Bank under the cash credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 17.30 lakhs.

  6. The said application inhaled on December 30, 1991 the test of a success by way of receiving one reply letter from the applicant Bank on same day and date. It has been exhibited as exhibit No. 27. In the said letter, the applicant Bank was pleased to sanction the net working capital of Rs. 15 lakhs with a further assurance that it might raise the said capital to be lent by itself to another Rs. 2.30 lakhs when such a situation was to emerge in reality. Thus, in a word, the application made on August 6, 1991 was in reality allowed in full. Not only that, so far as the primary concept of offer for a contract to be entered between the said parties is concerned, this primary stage has been found to have reached its finality on December 30, 1991.

  7. For the reason of being sanctioned the net working capital under the heading of cash credit facilities such loan facility needs to be divided further into the term loan and the working capital.

  8. For the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 executed the commercial-cum-Banking documents worth of the same amount as mentioned earlier on February 5, 1992 in favour of the applicant Bank.

  9. As discussed earlier, there was offered a contract and the same was accepted by the applicant Bank on December 30, 1991 during the course of business activities assigned to itself by the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

  10. True to say, by such execution on February 5, 1992 the offer-accepted contract, though used in the common commercial parlance, found its material shape to be followed by another commercial document like the letter of hypothecation being executed on the same day by the same party.

  11. Again, the contract of being sanctioned loan to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs witnessed the execution on the same day the letter of guarantee from the respondent No. 3, as per the provisions as contained in the Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. IX of 1872) by way of creating a charge being an alias of a creation of an equitable mortgage, which was factually done by means of depositing one title deed pertaining to the land...

To continue reading

Request your trial