O.A. No. 30 of 2003. Case: Bank of India Vs Amarnath Murlidhar and Ors.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberO.A. No. 30 of 2003
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Sharma, Adv. and For Respondents: K.S. Motwani, Adv. for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, S.R. Khati, Adv. for Defendant No. 3 and Joharapurkar, Adv. for Defendant No. 4
JudgesK.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
IssueUttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972
CitationI (2006) BC 22
Judgement DateSeptember 01, 2005
CourtNagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals


K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer

  1. This is an application for recovery of Rs. 15,15,665/- with interest thereto. The amount is sought to be recovered by liquidating 2nd defendant's mortgaged property.

  2. The defendant No. 2 carries business in the name of 1st defendant, the proprietary concern. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sued as guarantors.

  3. The defendant No. 1/2 is the applicant's constituent enjoying the loan/credit facilities at least since 1997. On or about 11.2.1997, the Bank sanctioned to defendant No. 1/2 cash credit facility (hypothecation of stocks) of Rs. 2 lakh.. It was increased by Rs. 3 lakh on or about 1.10.1997. There was one more increase of Rs. 2 lakh on or about 17.3.1999. The facility thus became Rs. 7 lakh in the aggregate. The facility was against the guarantee by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the equitable mortgage of 2nd defendant's properties. On or about 17.3.1999, the applicant also sanctioned cash credit (hypothecation of book debts) facility of Rs. 15 lakhs to defendant No. 1/2 against the same securities/guarantees. On that date, term loan of Rs. 62,000/- was also sanctioned. While the borrower executed D.P. Note, agreement and usual security documents, the guarantors gave letters of guarantee. The defendant No. 1/2 availed of the loan/credit facilities. On his inability to clear the outstandings, acknowledgements of debts were executed in the applicant's favour on 17.3.1999 and 7.9.2000. The payments were however not made even thereafter and despite repeated demands including that of issuance of demand notice. Therefore this application.

  4. The defendant No. 1/2 filed written statement at Ex. 11 which was adopted by defendant No. 3 by pursis at Ex. 19. There are only denials in the written statement.

  5. The defendant No. 4 by written statement at Ex. 17 has contended that vide letter dated 22.11.2001, he had withdrawn the guarantee. This plea implies that he had stood as guarantor. There is no other defence requiring mention.

  6. The evidence in this case comprises of claim affidavit of Mr. B.P. Sorte (Ex. 20), the applicant Bank's Officer and pursis Exs. 21 and 22 filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 treating the written statement as counter claim. The material documents on record are D.P. Notes (Exs. 27, 38,49,61), agreements of guarantee (Exs. 37,48,60, 72,79), letters of hypothecation Exs. 34, 35, 45, 46, 57, 70, 73), acknowledgements of debt (Exs. 36,47,58,59,71 and 80). The letters at Exs...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT