The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs M.R.Chaudhari and Co.and Ors.

upa

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 SUIT NO.1278 OF 1987

¶6

 The Sangli Bank Ltd. ).. Plaintiff

¶7

 Versus

¶8

 M.R. Choudhari & Co. and others ).. Defendants

¶9

 Mr.K.H. Modi with Ms.Pratibha Mehta i/b.Little & Co.
 for the Plaintiff.

¶10

 None present for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.

¶12

DATED : 29TH MARCH 2006

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

 . The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff
 Bank claiming an amount of Rs.4,42,610.98 together with
 interest at the rate of 20% per annum jointly and
 severally from the Defendants.

¶15

 2. Defendant No.2 has expired. However, according

¶16

 to the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, despite the
 best efforts made by the Plaintiff to ascertain the
 legal heirs of Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff Bank has
 been unable to find out their names. A letter written
 to the Advocate for the Defendants was replied by the
 Advocate for the Defendants intimating that he was
 unable to furnish the names of the heirs of Defendant
 No.2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits
 that under Order 20 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code,

¶17

¶18

 decree can be passed against Defendant No.2 as well,
 because despite the best efforts made, the Plaintiff
 Bank has been unable to bring on record the names of the
 legal heirs of deceased Defendant No.2. An affidavit of
 Vasant N. Mankar, Branch Manager of the Plaintiff Bank,
 is placed on record to indicate the efforts made by the
 Plaintiff Bank to ascertain the names of the legal heirs
 of the deceased Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff Bank has
 also produced the replies received from the Advocate for
 the Defendants. Affidavit taken on record and marked
 "X" for identification.

¶19

 3. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm of which
 Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were the partners. Defendant No.4
 was the guarantor of the loan. Defendant No.1 was a
 enjoying cash credit facility with the Plaintiff Bank.
 Defendant Nos.2 and 3 executed four documents, namely,
 Demand Promissory Note for Rs.3,00,000/-, Letter of
 Continuing Security for Rs.3,00,000/-, Letter of lien
 and sef-off and Agreement of Pledge of goods to secure
 the said Crash Credit Facility. Defendant No.4 has
 executed the Deed of Letter of Guarantee on 2nd January
 1982. Despite the Cash Credit facility, Defendant No.1
 also enjoyed Bill Discounting facility known as
 Documentary Bill Purchase facility against which the
 Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had executed another Promissory
 Note for Rs.2,00,000/-. Defendant No.4 was the

¶20

¶21

 guarantor who has executed the guarantee on 2nd January
 1982. It appears that 23 Bills of Exchange which were
 purchased or negotiated by the Plaintiff for
 consideration of Defendant No.1 having sold its goods to
 the respective customers were accepted or honoured.
 Thereafter, it appears that the Defendants failed and
 neglected to repay the amount of Rs.2,45,611.05 towards
 the Cast Credit facility and Rs.1,55,170.08 towards the
 Documentary Bill Purchase facility. It is for this
 reason that the present Suit has been filed.

¶22

 4. The only defence taken by the Defendants in
 their Written Statement is that they were made to sign
 blank documents and, therefore, were not aware that they
 were required to repay the amounts within the stipulated
 time.

¶23

 5. Nobody appears for the Defendants though served.
 The Plaintiff Bank has filed an affidavit by way of
 examination in chief of V.N. Mankar, Branch Manager, of
 the Plaintiff Bank. Compilation of the original
 documents have also been filed. Affidavit by way of
 examination in chief and the documents bear out the
 pleadings in the Plaint. In my view, therefore, decree
 must follow.

¶24

 6. Suit decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with

¶25

¶26

 interest payable at the rate of 20% till the filing of
 the Suit and at the rate of 6% from the date of filing
 of the Suit till payment.

The Sangli Bank Ltd. v. M.R.Chaudhari and Co.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sangli Bank Ltd. v. M.R.Chaudhari and Co.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Radha v. Co. Vs M/S.Kaydee Conduit Pipes and Ors.

Girdharidas N.Jusija Vs Kaydeep Conduit Pipes and Ors.

Gopal C. Chabaria Vs Kaydee Condnit Pipe and Ors.

Punjab National Bank Vs M/S. Jayshree Textiles and Ors.

The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs M/S.Navbharat Cotton Textile Fabrics and Ors.

The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs M/S.Chaudhari Trading Co.and Ors.