MANJULA, W/O PRAKASH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order dated 2.7.2015 made in O.A. No.463/2014 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short), Bangalore as per Annexure-A.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No.1 claimed that the Respondent No.2 i.e., the husband of the petitioner, who had deserted her had availed loan facilities of Rs.18.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs from the bank and the petitioner stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by the husband. On the basis of the same, the respondent No.1 - bank filed an application for recovery of dues under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in O.A. No.463/2014.

(3.) It is further contended that the 1st respondent while filing the application had tendered the address of the godown owned by the petitioner. The Respondent No.1 - bank has filed the application by mentioning the address of a godown which is standing in the name of the petitioner at Madawara while she was residing at Parimalanagar, Nandhini lay-out, Bangalore. The husband of the petitioner (Respondent No.2) is a vagabond and there has been a marital disconcert between the petitioner and the Respondent No.2 right from the year 2005 and in the year 2011, the Respondent NO.2 had come to her stating that he wanted to do a Fixed Deposit in the name of their daughter - Kum. Shalini and got her signatures on certain un-filled documents. While obtaining signatures, it is also stated that the bank would fill up the remaining portion of the documents and that the petitioner would be the guardian for the Fixed Deposit at Canara Bank, Chikkabidarakallu branch. Thereafter the petitioner requested the 1st respondent bank officials that the 2nd respondent was trying to cheat the bank and trying to move the machinery and requested the bank to discharge her from surety on 9.5.2013. Thereafter legal notice also issued by the bank to the petitioner.