Decided on March 12,2014



Ranjit Singh, J. - (1.) THE prayer made by the appellant for conducting cross -examination of two witnesses of the bank AW -1, Mr. KC. Gupta and AW -2, Mr. N. Raja Ram is declined by the Tribunal below. The appellant, therefore, has come in appeal against this order.
(2.) THE appellant is a guarantor for a loan obtained by one of his close relatives. The request for cross -examination has primarily been made to show negligence on the party of the bank's official in not taking proper action while the loan obtained was being utilized improperly by the principal borrower. In this regard, the counsel for the appellant has referred to a large number of issues and letters which he initiated to the bank to take note of the conduct of the principal borrower. The submissions made before the Tribunal below are also found noticed in the impugned order. As is recorded, the principal borrower had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 21 lacs on 4.12.2002 when the loan admittedly was sanctioned on 30.11.2002. The Tribunal below has noticed that the appellant/guarantor, defendant No. 4, and the principal borrower/defendant NO. 2 are closely related and as such the pleas now been raised ought to have been raised by the defendant NO. 2 himself.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has also invited my attention to the grounds of taken in defence by appellant where reference to the defences is found mentioned. As per the counsel, officials of the applicant bank had sanctioned and disbursed the credit facilities to unknown party with whom the appellant did not have any prior relation, without bothering to go into the contemporary worth and commercial viability of defendants 1 to 3. It was also pleaded that the relevant financial record and details pertaining to the defendants 2 and 3 was neither insisted nor taken. The credit facilities were afforded in violation of debt -equity -ratio. The plea of negligence in ensuring the disbursement under the credit facility were in commensuration with the availability of primary security viz. hypothecated goods and stocks is also raised and so also the fact that the applicant bank did not keep a strict vigil on the outflow of the money from the loan account.;

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