CANARA BANK Vs. COMPUTER DATA APPLICATION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Bangalore, in OA-778/1995. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned PO has allowed the Bank's claim against original defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, and disallowed the same as against original defendant No. 3. The Bank is aggrieved because the learned PO exonerated defendant No. 3 and hence the appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for the appellant Bank. Respondent No. 3 (Defendant No. 3) is absent though duly served. Other respondents are also absent though duly served. I have also gone through the proceedings which reveal that in the Tribunal, only defendant No. 3 appeared and contested the matter and other defendants were absent though duly served.

(3.) ORIGINAL suit being OS No. 2732/1992 was filed by the Canara Bank in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for recovery of its dues from the defendants. Upon the constitution of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB & FI) Act, 1993, the matter from the Civil Court came to be transferred to DRT, Bangalore. Notice was served to all the five defendants. However, defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex parte while defendant No. 3 alone appeared. He had filed written statement in the City Civil Court itself. His defence is that he was the Director of the 1st defendant Company, he retired from the company in the year 1983 and was not a Director at the time of filing of the suit. According to him, renewal of the enhanced Overdraft facility was not within his knowledge and even the Overdraft facility was not within his knowledge. He, however, admitted that defendants 3,4 and 5 executed guarantee letter and that he executed Bank guarantee for Rs. 4 lakhs. He, however, disputed about the enhancement of the said facility submitting that it was not within his knowledge. It was his main defence that the suit was barred by limitation. Citing these reasons, it was prayed by D3 that the suit be dismissed.