T.A. 162 of 2002. Case: Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Shri Mintu Das and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals
| Case Number | T.A. 162 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Sinha, Adv. and For Respondents: None |
| Judges | D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 17, 21 and 22(2) |
| Citation | II (2004) BC 100 |
| Judgement Date | August 28, 2002 |
| Court | Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals |
Judgment:
D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
-
Mrs. S. Sinha, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank. Mr. P.K. Samaddar, Officer (Law) of the applicant Bank has appeared this day.
-
Neither of the five respondents has appeared in spite of the repeated due service upon themselves nor the learned Advocate for them has appeared.
-
The applicant Bank has preferred one application under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 for realisation of Rs. 12,60,191.18 p, against those respondents jointly and severally before the learned transferring Tribunal; the date of making of such an application is January 16, 2001.
-
Neither of those respondents has so far filed the written statement nor adduced any evidence, oral or documentary, whereas the applicant Bank has submitted one evidence on affidavit along with twenty-one original documents on which it relies for the reason of making successful the application "presented on the day mentioned above.
-
Pursuant to the last order, this day has been fixed for the hearing ex parte,
-
Mrs. S. Sinha, the learned Advocate has submitted in extenso; not only that the learned Advocate has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to the various documents.
-
The judgment is being pronounced this day ex parte.
-
On the basis of an application for being sanctioned Rs. 2 lakhs under the cash credit facility made on November 24, 1993 by the respondent No. 1 as the proprietor of M/s. MCO Construction, a construction firm engaged in the road construction business on a job contract basis, to the applicant Bank, the latter made a response to the said application in the year 1994; the exact date being on May 17, 1994. The response was in the affirmative form by way of agreeing to sanction loan of Rs. 1.90 lakhs to the applicant respondent No. 1, subject to the execution of a number of commercial or Banking documents in its favour by the said executants party. In the letter of sanction issued by the applicant Bank, it was clearly stipulated by itself that 2% interest at the RBI rate and further being subject to a minimum of 14.5% per annum along with a penalty interest of 2.5% per annum is the normal rate. In the event of a loan to the extent of the pecuniary limit, as indicated above, to be sanctioned in favour of the applicant/respondent, there were proposed to be enforced against the said respondent the other conditions laying down inter alia.
(i) the hypothecation of the various construction materials as well as
(ii) an equitable mortgage of an immovable property. Those terms and conditions were agreed to be accepted by the applicant respondent No. 1.
-
Then came May 24, 1994, when the said party entered into an agreement of hypothecation of goods with the applicant Bank at its Shyambazar Branch, Kolkata. The said agreement entered into between the parties has contained not less than thirty-one clauses, being here the terms and conditions, to be complied with by both the contracting parties. Again, for the reason of sanction of Rs. 1.90 lakhs, there was further an agreement for cash credit overdraft between the said parties on the same day and at the same place; and the said agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial