Decided on January 25,2018

Nandita Acharjee Appellant
Amitabh Dey And Ors. Respondents


KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. - (1.) AND ORDER - Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondents although notice has been duly served on them. It is submitted at the bar that the respondent No.3 in this case, had already expired.
(2.) This appeal under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad-hoc), Hojai at Shankardev Nagar in Money Suit No.54/2000, by which the suit was decreed only against the respondent No.5 and the suit was dismissed against the respondents No.1 to 4. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant is praying for a decree to be passed, jointly and severally, against the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 also along with decree passed against the respondent No.5 by the learned trial court.
(3.) The summary of facts of the case is that the appellant is a licenced money lender doing business in the name of Hindustan Mortgage Institution, Lumding and had advanced a loan of Rs.60 Lakh to the respondent No.5, which was requested in order to undertake a contract work with the Railway. In this regard, an agreement dated 16.11.1998 between the appellant and the respondents No.1 and 5, was signed. The respondents No.1 and 5 availed the loan at the rate of 21.75% per annum and the respondents No.1 to 4 (including the deceased respondent No.3, whose name has been striked out) stood as guarantors for payment of the same. Projecting that the respondent No.1 and 5 had failed to pay the loan, an Advocates Notice dated 30.07.2000 was served, demanding repayment of the whole loan amount. After the part-payment made by cheque dated 15.09.2000 was returned dishonoured, and no payment was received, the appellant had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.86,79,315.70 with pendent lite interest @ 21.75% and cost.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.