STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Vs. G P GOYAL
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-bank") filed the O. A. (initially numbered as O. A. No. 473 of 1996) against the first respondent (the fourth defendant in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-defendant"), the second respondent herein (the first defendant in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-company") and others for the recovery of Rs. 84,95,730 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT").
(2.) Defendants Nos. 5, 8 and 9 contested the O. A., and the rest of the defendants remained ex parte. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by the order dated March 18, 1997, held that the appellant-bank is entitled to recover Rs. 84,95,730 from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 with interest and costs. He also held that out of this amount the appellant-bank is entitled to recover Rs. 4,15,862.04 from the respondent-defendant with interest at I6 1/2 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests from January 20, 1988, till the filing of the application, and future interest till realisation. Thereafter, the respondent-defendant, namely, the fourth defendant, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed. The respondent-defendant then contested the claim of the appellant-bank. The O. A. was renumbered as O. A. No. 476 of 1996. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by the impugned order dated December 18, 2000, held that the guarantee deed executed by the respondent-defendant came to an end on January 20, 1988, when a new agreement was entered into by the parties and the limit sanctioned was also enhanced, that in view of the variation in the contract the claim against the respondent-defendant is not maintainable, and that the claim against the respondent-defendant is also barred by limitation. Therefore, the learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant-bank as against the respondent-defendant.
Therefore, the appellant-bank has preferred this appeal. The respondent-defendant has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal.
(3.) I have heard counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.