UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. CHET RAM AND ANOTHER
LAWS(HPH)-1991-7-20
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 17,1991

UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Appellant
VERSUS
Chet Ram And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kamlesh Sharma, J. - (1.) On 17.5.1985, the plaintiff, United Commercial Bank, Darlaghat Branch, Dist. Solan, filed this suit through its the then Branch Manager, Shri Arun Kumar Sood, under Chapter XV of the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules and Orders read with Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of Rs. 2,53,722.55 on account of truck loan advanced to defendants, S/Sh. Chet Ram and Lekh Ram. Shri Chet Ram is the loanee and Shri Lekh Ram Sharma is the guarantor. Both the defendants applied for leave to defend the suit which was allowed vide order dated 9.4.1986. As stated in the plaint, the then branch manger of the Plaintiff Bank, Shri Arun Kumar Sood and Shri N.J. Kalra, an officer of the Bank, hold general power of attorney authorising them to file suits and sign pleadings as well as Vakalatnama on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. Being Manager, Shri Arun Kumar Sood, was also the principle officer of the plaintiff Bank. He Could file the present suit and sign the pleadings and the Vakalatnama.
(2.) It is further stated that on the application of defendant No. 1, granted term loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- for purchase of truck on 30.1.1982. Defendant No. 2, Lekh Ram Sharma, voluntarily stood guarantee for the term loan granted to defendant No. 1 . On 30.1.1982 itself both of them executed loan documents. As per the stipulation in the loan documents, the defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum on the loan amount. They also agreed to repay the loan amount with interest in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 7,000/-. The first instalment was payable on 1.2.1982 and each subsequent instalment on or before 30th day of each and every succeeding calender Month. The guarantee-deed executed by defendant No. 2 was continuing one and contained a specific stipulation that acknowledgment given by defendant No. 1 from time to time would be binding on him. The truck purchased with the loan amount was also hypothecated by executing hypothecation-deed by defendant No. 1. The defendants defaulted in making payment of the instalments of loan and an amount of Rs. 2,53,722.55 became due and payable by them on 25.4.1985 in the books of account of the plaintiff When. despite several demands and legal notice dated 28.2.1984, the loan amount was not paid by the defendants, the plaintiff-Bank was compelled to file the present suit. It is specifically mentioned that the suit was filled within time as the loan amount was acknowledged by the defendants by making payments of Rs. 5,000/- on 19.1.1984 and Rs. 4,000/-. On 7.3.1984.
(3.) In his written statement, Chet Ram defendant No. 1 denied that the then Manager Shri Arun Kumar Sood and Shri N. J. Kalra, an officer of the Bank, Were competent to file the present suit. He has admitted that he did approach the Bank for the grant of term loan for the purchase of a truck and did sign certain document. But he has specifically denied that he agreed to any interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum on the loan amount. Accordingly to him, the loan documents got signed from him were on printed forms which were not filled in at the time his signatures were obtained. He has specifically pointed out to Paras 6 and 7 of the Term Loan Agreement wherein the columns of interest were blanks. His allegations are that interpolations were made in the loan documents by filling them later on. He further alleges that Shri Lekh Ram Sharma never executed any deed of guarantee. He disposed the accounts of the plaintiff-Bank and the figure of Rs. 2,53,722.55 and denied that this amount was payable by him on 25. 4. 1985. Accordingly to him, since the plaintiff-Bank had failed to take over the hypothecated truck and to appropriate the same towards the outstanding loan as requested by him on 7. 1. 1985, the plaintiff-Bank had lost its right to recover the loan amount from the defendants. By way of additional pleas, Shri Chet Ram has, inter alia, raised the objection that the suit was barred by limitation. He had never acknowledged the amount in writing as alleged by the plaintiff-Bank.;


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