Decided on July 26,2006



Meena V.Gomber, - (1.) THE applicant Bank filed this Original Application on 13th December, 2004 against defendants named hereinabove for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,45,759.19 along with costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 12.75% per annum with monthly rests.
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case as mentioned in the Original Application are that defendant No. 1 is the sole proprietor of Charu Electronics and is engaged in the business of trading of electronic goods and home appliances, etc. under the name and style of Charu Electronics. On 8th August, 2000 a C.C. limit to the tune of Rs. 9.50 lacs was sanctioned, lent and released to defendant No. 1. In consideration whereof, defendant No. 1 and late Smt. Raj Gupta created equitable mortgage of their property detailed in para 5(1)(b) of the Original Application. Again on 9th October, 2000 a Bank guarantee limit of Rs. 3.00 lacs was sanctioned to defendant No. 1 as per the terms and conditions contained in the documents executed by them (in addition to the earlier sanctioned C.C. limit of Rs. 9.50 lacs). Further on 14th December, 2001 said C.C. limit of Rs. 9.50 lacs was enhanced to Rs. 16.00 lacs. At that time defendant No. 1 and late Smt. Raj Gupta executed necessary loaning and security documents detailed in para 5(E) respectively. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of late Smt. Raj Gupta, guarantor and mortgagor. Defendants availed the limits and acknowledged their liability from time-to-time but did not maintain financial discipline. Even legal notice dated 17th November, 2004 did not bring any fruitful results. Hence the Bank was compelled to initiate recovery proceedings against all the defendants. According to the Bank it maintained regular books of accounts in the ordinary course of business wherein a total sum of Rs. 17,45,759.19 inclusive of the accrued and applied interest as per the break-up as shown in para 5(P) was outstanding as on the date of filing of this Original Application. The applicant Bank has prayed for issuance of recovery certificate for the said sum along with costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 12.75% per annum with monthly rests and the said sum has been prayed to be realized from the sale of mortgaged property of defendant No. 1 and deceased Smt. Raj Gupta and also from the hypothecated stock.
(3.) DEFENDENTS though represented through their Counsel but failed to file their written statement despite being given many chances and consequently their right to file the same was closed on 13th January, 2006.;

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