A perusal of the documents exhibited bythe Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevantdocuments are executedby the defendant in the normal courseof transaction. So the contention of the defendants that theapplicant bank obtained their signatureson blank documentsis not tenable. The contention of defendant that there is no necessity ofobtainingcollateral security by the applicant is also not tenable asno material is placed by the defendant for establishing that forvarious loan facilities availedby the defendant, collateral securityis not required.The other contentionof defendant is that the claimmadeby Appticantbank in OA is barred by limitation' But in view of thefact that defendantexecuted acknowledgement letter by acknowledgingtheir liability and as the said documentsare executed within3 years from the date of filing of OA, the claim of the applicant bankis within time. Consideringall the circumstances, I am ..,,:,,gi,P.qin,ionthatthedefensetakenbythedefendantisnottenable' --")" ";r;-."' t.,' ,i:'.,1'-itence theapplicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from .: ;i'i" i' , defendant. : I '..! '""i''!' .,i. Point No.ii)-.,.t. l-t,'- \J,, . *-.- -_
