TA/64/2002. Case: Punjab National Bank Vs Sonthalia Chem-Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberTA/64/2002
CounselFor Appellant: Sukumar Dutta, Poetry Dutta and P. Verma, Advs. and For Respondents: Subhransu Ganguly and Piyali Chakraborty, Advs.
JudgesD.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 89 - Order 10, Rule 2; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 - Section 4; Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 34; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 19(20) and 19(22)
CitationIII (2005) BC 34
Judgement DateMarch 04, 2005
CourtKolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals


D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. The applicant Bank's claim application that has been filed on March 27, 2001 has been found strongly resisted by all the four defendants brought on record in their joint written statement as well as the objection filed by those defendants to the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the applicant Bank on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 on the grounds such as that--

    (i) those defendants have not at all availed themselves of the credit facilities under the term loan and the cash credit (hypothecation of plant and machinery including factory shed, and also hypothecation of raw materials, stock in process, finished goods) and book debts as claimed by the applicant Bank in its application (para 5.3, page 6) preferred on March 27, 2001.

    (ii) those defendants have categorically challenged the registration of charges claimed to be made by the defendant No. 1 respectively on April 25, 1995, October 24, 1996, July 7, 1999 with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal in favour of the same applicant Bank; and those defendants have steadily refused to accept that those charges are legally valid and binding on themselves;

    (iii) the specific denial by the defendants of the acceptance of the alleged terms of conditions as contained in the letter of sanction bearing reference No. RMC/ 38L/221 dated February 3, 1995 and the claim of disowning the signatures claimed to be found present in most of the Banking documents;

    (iv) those documents have also been claimed by the defendants as forged with the illegal intent of filing the present proceeding against themselves; and

    (v) the denial of acknowledgement of the balance dues by the defendants.

  2. The above view has been materially framed by the this Tribunal after the written statement and the objection to the evidence-on-affidavit jointly filed by the defendants have been minutely read and analysed by itself. Subsequent to that, those defendants have all on a sudden filed on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 one application before this Tribunal. The said application has been, like the previous occasions, jointly filed by those defendants. With it one public notice issued by the said Bank in The Telegraph' on Thursday, March 13, 2003 and one application made to the Senior Regional Manager on the said Bank dated Wednesday, March 26, 2003 by the defendant No. 1 have been enclosed. From the paragraph No. 3 of the said application, it appears categorically that those defendants have, in response to the said paper publication addressed to the eligible defaulting borrowers of the said Bank, afforded to avail themselves of the opportunity of settling their outstanding dues to the said Bank in terms of the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines for compromise of NPAs upto Rs. 10 crores, applied on the aforementioned date to the said Bank for settling its actual claim in instalments. In the said paragraph the application made on behalf of the defendant No. 1 has been claimed to be received by the regional office of the said Bank on the same day and date. The reason why this Tribunal is referring to the above application is that the application made by the said defendants stands in reality as the negation of all the denials specifically taken out in the written statement presented jointly before this Tribunal on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 in connection with the pending claim case of the applicant Bank. The written statement has been actually meant for meeting all sorts of allegation usually raised by the suitor Bank in its application. But the existing facts are no doubt suggesting the combined reading of the above application with the written statement--both being on record of this Tribunal. In such perspective, a question of crucial importance necessarily arises as to whether the claim amount of the Bank being Rs. 37,96,959.15 p. has been accepted by the defendants as the debt liability of themselves. For a moment, the evidentiary value of the application which has formed a part of the record in the present proceeding is not being considered by this Tribunal. 3. It has been of so importance to note one eventuality that has taken place on the same date when the above written statement has been presented. The said event has been tended to be described in the following manner:

    One letter dated Monday, May 5, 2003 to the learned Advocate of the defendants has also been submitted on the very same date before this Tribunal. The above letter has been in fact written by the defendant No. 2 as one of the directors of the defendant No. 1, a body corporate. The following lines of the said letter have been quoted below--

    ... As the case hearing date is on 6th May 2003, we are enclosing herewith a cheque No. 449238 dated 26.5.2003 on...for Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lacs fifty thousand only) with reference to our letter dated 26.3.2003 in response to the advertisement by PNB in the newspaper dated 13.3.2003 and as advised by the learned Tribunal to show the bona fide of the proposal dated 26.3.2003. The above cheque is enclosed herewith if the claim is settled for Rs. 10.00 lacs as offered in our proposal letter dated 26.3.2003 than only you please hand over the cheque as asked by the learned Tribunal.

  3. In this perspective, it may be asked; whether would that letter of the above defendants be not received by this Tribunal as one that shakes the entire basis of their written statement? Not only that, one account payee post-dated cheque bearing No. 449238 dated May 26, 2003 and also for a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs has been accepted that day (Order No. 21) by this Tribunal as a payment in support of the bona fide attitude towards the Bank in relation to the proposed settlement for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs that has been actually exhibited through the above discussed application. That day this Tribunal observed inter alia the following--

    "...Such amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs though paid against Rs. 30,96,959.15p., is actually a recovery of the Bank's dues....";

    and also opined against the Bank's role in relation thereto.

  4. On Friday, June 27, 2003 the said defendants have also brought the material information to the notice of this Tribunal that the defendant No. 2 as one of the directors of the defendant No. 1 has been called upon by one Mr. S.N. Dan of the applicant Bank for a meeting at the Regional Manager's office of the said Bank on May 28, 2003. The said application has in fact contained in itself the causes as to why the above cheque submitted before this Tribunal has been on the date of its presentation dishonoured and the above fact has been partially supported by the letter (bearing reference No. ARMC/SHM/129(I)/7903 dated June 12...

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