C.M.AUTO STORES Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(HPH)-1997-11-9
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on November 11,1997

C M AUTO STORES AND ORS Appellant
VERSUS
UNION BANK OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAJOR U.R. BHATT V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RATAN LAL AND ANR. V. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK LTD. [REFERRED]
SAIT TARAJEE KHIMCHAND AND ORS. V. YELAMARTI SATYAM AND ORS. [REFERRED]
SHA MANMALL MISRIMALL V. K. RADHAKRISHNAN [REFERRED]
MST. DHANI V. STATE AND ANR. [REFERRED]
M/S NATIONAL RICE AND DAL MILLS V. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
THE RAJPUTANA TRADING CO. LTD. V. MALAY TRADING AGENCY [REFERRED]
FULLBARUNESSA V. THE ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE,GAUHATI [REFERRED]
BINOD BIHARI SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KSHITISH CHANDRA PURKAIT V. SANTOSH KUMAR PURKATI AND ORS. [REFERRED]
RADHESHYAM G. GARGV. SMT. SAFIYABAI IBRAHIM LIGHTWALLA [REFERRED]
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK V. DURGA DASS AND ANR. [REFERRED]
CORPORATION BANK BANK OF INDIA VS. D S GOWDA:KARNAM RANGA RAO [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The present appeal has been filed by the Defendants-Appellants against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below whereby a decree for recovery of Rs. 71,865.10 p. has been passed in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent along with future interest at the agreed rate.
(2.)The Plaintiff-Respondent, being the Union of India, filed the suit against the Defendants-Appellants on the pleadings that the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, on 30.9.1978 had been granted overdraft facility in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ by the Plaintiff-bank. They had agreed to pay interest @ 6% over and above the bank rate with minimum of 15% per annum with quarterly rests. The operation of their accounts by the Defendants was stated to be unsatisfactory. Hence a sum of Rs. 71,865.10 p., inclusive of interest was outstanding against them till the institution of the suit. Hence the suit for recovery of the said amount.
(3.)The Defendants in their written statement took up the preliminary objections that the suit was barred by limitation; that the suit was barred by misjoinder of parties and that the suit was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the Plaintiff had not filed the documents in support of its claim along with the suit. Hence the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Since no plea regarding limitation was made, therefore, the suit was time-barred. On merits, the overdraft facility in question was admitted to have been sanctioned to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 30.9.1978, while the suit had been instituted on 18.8.1986. The Plaintiff was required to state as to how it was within limitation. It was also pleaded that the suit had not been instituted by a duly authorised person, therefore it was incompetent and merited dismissal.


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