The learned munsel for the applicant bank has liled rejoinder against the written statement cum evidence on aflidavit filed by the defendanb No. 1,2,4 & S in which il has been stated that the defendants had availed the loan facilities on 12.08.2014, 25.M.2O16 and signed the Acknowledgment of Debts and balance contirmation on 31.01.2018 and 31.12.2020 and the suit was fited on 23.12.2022, therefore the original application has been fired wefl within the period of rimitation. rt is further stated that the letter of Authority is issued by the Deputy Zonal Head and the original apptication and the evi,Cence on affidavit is signed by the Chief Manager and also being the principal offcer ofthe bank can depose on behalf ofthe applicant bank. The applicant bank relies on the case of United Bank of lndia Vs Naresh Kumar and another AIR 1g97 Supreme Court 3, where the Hon'ble Court had held that suit instituted or defended by public corporation like Bank-Arrowing pubric interest to be defeated on mere technicarity- not justified. The defendants have not denied the execution of documenrs, avairing of Loan and or the contents of the pteadings, thereby admitting the liability towards the applicant bank. Such non-specific denial mnstitutes an implied admission by the defendants. Moreover, the slatemenls of accrunt are system generated and there is no involvement of any manual intervention and rate of interest that had been charged are as per contractual rate and RBr guiderines and arso changes in the rate from time to rime. The capitalized Penal lnterest had arso been waived/ adjusted/ deducted from the totar outstanding amount on the date of NpA. The Original Application as we as the Evidence on Afiidavit holding the defendants legally bound and join0y and severally
