Dismissed¶229

Sri Deepak Kanthilal Joshi v. Federal Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2025RFA/2334/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No.2334/2007; High Court of Karnataka; V Srishananda J; Federal Bank Ltd. v. Deepak Kanthilal Joshi and Akkayamma; Sri Chamundi Global Co.; inland letter of credit facility; L.C.No.24/1999; B.R.Jewellers; equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds; burden of proof on borrower pleading discharge of loan; evidentiary insufficiency of photocopy of pay order; Ex.D8; Ex.P3; Exs.D5–D6; Section 96 CPC; suit for recovery of money; interest 20.40% contractual, 12% pre-decree, 6% post-decree; first appeal dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Drawing of letter of credit L.C.24/1999 in favour of B.R.Jewellers and its discounting by the drawee are not in dispute; consequently, a sum of Rs.10,28,000/- stood debited to the defendants' account under the facility vide Ex.P3. ¶29

Sri Deepak Kanthilal Joshi Vs Federal Bank Ltd. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶229

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendants were successful in establishing that they have repaid the loan and therefore suit claim is not maintainable? +2 more

¶147

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Once the defendants admit opening of the inland letter of credit facility (Ex.P3) and plead that they have cleared the entire outstanding under L.C.No.24/1999, the burden lies on the defendants to establish repayment by cogent evidence.

¶37

Key takeaways

Despite the trial court wrongly placing the burden on the plaintiff, the plaintiff discharged its burden by placing documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 on record.ratio¶36
The trial court ought to have raised the issue whether the defendants would establish that they repaid the balance amount under L.C.No.24/1999; instead, the burden was wrongly placed on the plaintiff.ratio¶35
A photocopy of the pay order does not discharge the burden cast on the defendants to establish that they have paid the amount to the plaintiff's bank.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (V Srishananda J), 17.10.2025: dismisses RFA No.2334/2007 under S.96 CPC against judgment and decree dated 15.11.2006 in O.S.No.6567/2000 (X Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore) whereby defendants 1 and 2 — proprietor of Sri Chamundi Global Co. and the co-obligant/mortgagor — were directed to pay Federal Bank Ltd. Rs.5,98,974/- with interest @12% p.a. till pronouncement and 6% p.a. thereafter, secured by mortgage of Sy.No.71.2, Mahadevapura village. The Rs.50,00,000/- inland LC facility (Ex.P3) and drawing/discounting of L.C.No.24/1999 for Rs.10,28,000/- in favour of B.R.Jewellers being undisputed, and the Rs.6,00,000/- fixed deposit having been adjusted (leaving a debit of Rs.4,79,825/-), the defence of discharge rested on a photocopy pay order (Ex.D8, Rs.5,95,000/-) and letters Exs.D5–D6. Held: where defendants plead repayment of an admitted facility, the burden lies on them to prove discharge by cogent evidence; a mere photocopy of the pay order cannot discharge that burden; the defendants having failed, the decree is neither capricious, perverse nor legally infirm and calls for no interference, even though the trial court had wrongly framed the issue by placing the burden on the plaintiff who nonetheless discharged it through Ex.P1–P28. Points 1 and 2 answered in the negative; appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2334 OF 2007 (MON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI DEEPAK KANTHILAL JOSHI S/O LATE SRI KANTHILAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PROP: SRI CHAMUNDI GLOBAL CO. NO.167/Y, 59^TH CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK BASHYAM CIRCLE, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE -560 010

¶9

SMT AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.29, OLD NO.12, G .NO.5 STREET, JOGUPALYA ULSOOR, BANGALORE -560 008

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

FEDERAL BANK LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER NO.11, 1^ST CROSS GANDHI NAGAR BANGALORE -560 009

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.No.6567/2000 ON THE FILE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Defendants in O.S.No.6567/2000 are the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said suit for recovery of the loan amount granted by the respondent/plaintiff.

¶25

Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their original ranking before the trial Court.

¶26

Operative portion of judgment and decree of the trial Court reads as under:

¶27

“The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed against the defendants 1 and 2 with costs. The defendants 1 and 2 are hereby directed pay a sum of Rs.5,98,974/- to the plaintiff bank together with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till today on the principal amount and 6% p.a on the decretal amount from today till the date of realisation.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The defendants 1 and 2 are given time of six months to pay the decretal amount. In case of failure on the part of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay the suit claim to the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank shall be at liberty to bring the schedule property for sale to realise the suit claim. In case the proceeds of the sale were to fall less to the suit claim, the plaintiff bank shall be at liberty to proceed personally against the defendants 1 and 2.

¶31

Draw decree accordingly.”

¶32

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

¶33

4.1. First defendant being the sole proprietor of Chamundi Global Company and second defendant being the coobligant, availed the loan facility under the inland letter of credit facility scheme to the extent of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank by executing necessary agreements in this regard. The rate of interest that was agreed upon having regard to the commercial activities was at the rate of 20.40% per annum.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Apart from that, defendants also executed on-

¶37

demand promissory note in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on 28.01.1999.

¶38

Defendants agreed to pay the loan amount jointly

¶39

and severally. Defendant No.2 secured the liability of the loan by executing a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the immovable properties owned by defendant No.2 mentioned in the schedule (hereinafter referred to as ‘mortgage property’) to the plaint, which reads as under:

¶40

Description of mortgaged immovable property

¶41

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing house Sy.No.71.2, situated at Mahadevapura village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and having area of 25 Guntas and bounced on the

¶42

East by :	Mun	ichikkappa a land
West by	:	Cart Road
North by	:	Narayanappa’s Property
South by	:	Village”

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Defendant No.2 by letter dated 28.01.1999,

¶46

confirmed the deposit of title deeds of schedule ‘A’ property.

¶47

Admittedly, the defendants became defaulters. Apart from the above facility, plaintiffs opened a Letter of Credit (hereinafter referred to as ‘LC’) in a sum of Rs.10,28,000/- in favour of B.R.Jewellers. Said facility was numbered as L.C.No.24/1999. The drawee of the L.C. namely; B.R. Jewellers on the same date discounted the L.C. and received the entire payment which was duly accepted by defendant No.1.

¶48

Thus, there was a liability to the extent of Rs.10,28,000/on the defendants and due date was 30.04.1999.

¶49

Admittedly, defendants did not clear the liability of Rs.10,28,000/-. Instead, they postponed the payment. Therefore, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendants and fixed deposit in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- which was in the name of defendant No.1, was adjusted towards the liability of Rs.10,28,000/- as per the instructions of defendant No.1, acknowledging the liability of Rs.10,28,000/-.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Thus, there was balance liability in respect of the L.C.No.24/1999.

¶54

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not come forward to clear the liability, despite repeated reminders dated 21.07.1999, 28.08.1999, 08.12.1999 and on 16.03.2000. Ultimately, plaintiff issued a legal notice on 20.05.2000. Defendants did not comply the callings of the notice nor reply.

¶55

As on the date of issue of legal notice, liability is in the account of the defendants with regard to the aforesaid L.C.No.24/1999, including the accrued interest was to the tune of Rs.5,98,794/-. Therefore, suit came to be filed.

¶56

Defendants entered appearance before the trial Court pursuant to the suit summons and filed written statement pleading discharge of the facility.

¶57

However, the trial Court not noticing the defence raised by the defendants, improperly framed five issues, which reads as under:

¶58

1. “Whether the Plaintiff proves that defendants 1 and 2 jointly executed on Agreement for Inland Letter of Credit on 28.1.1999 in favour of the plaintiff and availed the facility as contended in the plaint?

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the second defendant has created an equitable mortgage of immovable property in favour of the Plaintiff ?

¶62

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compound rate of interest as claimed ?

¶63

4. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?

¶64

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim amount as prayed for ?”

¶65

The only issue that should have been framed by the

¶66

trial Court in view of the written statement contention is, placing the burden on the defendants as ‘whether the defendants prove that they have discharged the outstanding amount in respect of L.C.No.24/1999’.

¶67

Be it what it may, there was no alteration of the

¶68

issues.

¶69

Nevertheless, plaintiff stepped into the witness box to prove the suit transaction and the balance amount of the defendants by examining the officer of the bank namely, Udaykumar Shetty, as P.W.1 and placed on record 28 documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Ex.P28, comprising of on-demand promissory pronote, security delivery letter, agreement for inland letter of credit, declaration, letters, copy of the legal notice, ledger extract, sale deed, original will, death certificate, RTC extract, mutation register extract, tax paid receipt and encumbrance certificates.

¶73

The property documents were in respect of the mortgage property.

¶74

As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, Sri Deepak Kanthilal Joshi is examined as D.W.1. On behalf of defendants, 8 documents were placed on record namely, statement of account, entries made in the statement of account, letter dated 04.04.2001, letter dated 17.03.1999 and photo copy of pay order.

¶75

On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraphs 14 to 20 which reads as under:

¶76

“14. It is the claim of the defendant No.1 who is examined as DW.1 that when the plaintiff bank has

¶77

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

granted the letter of credit facility for Rs.50.00 Lakhs, it rushed early to the Court for filing suit that too when the security offered by the defendant No.2 valued upto Rs.2.00 crore and that is clear from his written statement. Thus in the context of the case, availing of loan facility is not disputed by the defendant who is contesting the case. Moreover, in the crossexamination, he admitted his signatures on Ex.p.1, pronote, Ex.p.2 security delivery letter, Ex.p.3 agreement for inland letter credit. Thus borrowing and availment of the loan by the defendant No.1 is not disputed. Total availment as per Ex.p.1 to p.3 is Rs.50.00 lakhs. However, it is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant used the letter of credit facility in favour of B.R.Jewelers for Rs.10.28 lakhs on 30.1.1999 and the period that was granted to the plaintiff was 90 days. Ex.p.5 is the declaration said to have been given by the defendant No.1. Ex.p.6 is the document said to have been executed by the defendant No.2 regarding deposit of title deeds for the repayment of the loan by the defendant No.1. Exs.p.7 to 13 are the letters addressed to each other by the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Ex.p.14 is the copy of the legal notice dated 20.5.2000. Ex.p.15 is the account extract wherein the balance is shown as Rs.9,98,974/-. Ex.P.16 is the sale deed dated 19.3.1961, Ex.P.17 is the original Will, Ex.P.18 is the death certificate of Nagamma, Ex.P.19 is the RTC extract, Ex.P.20 is the mutation extract, Ex.P.21 is the RTC Extract, Ex.P.22 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P.23 to 28 are the encumbrance certificates.

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

15. Ex.D.1 is the statement of account confronted to plaintiff marked on behalf of the defendant No.1. Ex.D.2 to 4 are also statement of accounts marked on behalf of the defendant No.1. Ex.D.5 and 6 are the copies of letter dated 4.4.01 and 17.3.1999. Ex.D.7 is the statement of account and Ex.D.8 is the xerox copy of the pay order for Rs.5,95,000/-. It is significant to note that EX.D.5 letter is dated 4.4.2001 and nothing is stated regarding the loan availed by the defendant. It is significant to note that the said letter admitted to have addressed by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff bank.

¶85

16. Considering the entire bone of contentions between the parties, the following points-are amply made clear:

¶86

(a) The second defendant, who is claimed by the plaintiff for having mortgaged the suit schedule property, has not contested the case. And in the circumstances of the case, execution of mortgage is established.

¶87

(b) The defendant No.1 does not dispute the availment of letter of credit of Rs.50.00 lakhs by the plaintiff and he has gone on record admitting the signature on Ex.p.1 demand promissory note, Ex.p.2 delivery letter and Ex.p.3 agreement for inland letter credit.

¶88

(c) Ex.p.9 is dated 21.9.1999. Ex.p.1 to 3 are said to have signed by both the defendants and incidentally

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

Ex.p.1 is for Rs.50.00 lakhs as claimed by the plaintiff and not disputed by the defendants.

¶93

(d) It is further significant to note that in the later stage of the case, the defendant No.1 contended after amending the Written Statement that he has cleared the loan and is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff bank as on the date of filing of this suit. He did not owe any amount to the plaintiff bank.

¶94

(e) Ex.D.1 was confronted to pw.1 during crossexamination by the defendant No.1. Thus it is an admitted document by both the plaintiff and the defendants.

¶95

(f) It is necessary to mention the relevant columns under Ex.D.1 which is said to be a statement of account:

¶96

Dat e	Particul ars	Che que No.	Withd rawl	Depo sit
Xxx	Xxx	Xxx	Xxx	Xxx
17. 3.9 9	Clg. LCC No.	1		5950 00 Ex.D. 1(a)
17. 3.9 9	To self	392 272	6000 00 Ex.D. 1(b)
17. 3.9 9	Chq. Bounce	1	5950 00 Ex.D. 1(c)

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

19.	Clg.LC	849		5950
3.9	C.No.	30		00 Ex.D
9				1(d)
Xxx	Xxx	Xxx	Xxx	Xxx

¶101

17. At this Juncture, it is significant to note that Ex.D.8 dis the copy of pay order for Rs.5,95,000/- and it is dated 17.3.1999. It is further significant to note that under Ex.D.1(a) a deposit of Rs.5,95,000/- is being made to the account of the defendant No.1 and under Ex.D.1(b) a withdrawal of Rs.6,00,000/- is made by the defendant No.1 and as per Ex.D.1(c), a debit of Rs.5,95,000/- is made stating as ‘cheque bounced'. However, under Ex.D.1(d) further deposit of Rs.5,95,000/- is shown. It is pertinent to note that to a Court question, the defendant No.1 has answered that he has deposited only one instrument for Rs.5,95,000/to the plaintiff bank. Under the circumstances, it is to be seen that it is Ex.D.8 which is the pay order for Rs.5,95,000/- dated 17.3.1999. Thus according to the defendant, he has not deposited more than one instrument Worth Rs.5,95,000/- into the bank. It is further significant to note that as per Ex.D.1(b), there is a withdrawal of Rs.6.00 lakh by the defendant No.1 from his current account. In the above circumstances, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court that the instrument for Rs.5,95,000/- was not cleared at the first instance, hence it was shown in the withdrawal column by debiting as per Ex.D.1(c) on 17.3.1999. However when it was

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

cleared, a credit by means of deposit is given as per Ex.D.1(d).

¶106

18. In the overall context of the case, the defendant has gone on record by stating that it was only instrument worth Rs.5,95,000/- that was deposited by him into the current account. If this version Of the defendant were to be believed, then according to him, an amount of Rs.5,95,000/- from the current account was transferred to his letter of credit and his fixed deposit amount was Rs.6.00 lakh. Thus, total amount becomes Rs.11.95 lakhs absolving the letter of credit of Rs.10.28 lakhs claimed by the plaintiff, but it is pertinent to note that under Ex.D.1, another Ex.D.1(b) is the withdrawal of Rs.6.00 lakhs by the defendant through cheque No.392272. Thus the defendant who has deposited one instrument as per Ex.D.1(a), has drawn Rs.6.00 lakhs as per Ex.D.1(b). It is pertinent to note that the defendant has produced Ex.D.8 which is the pay order and during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, when suggested that the entries as per Ex.D.1(a)(b)(c) and (d) are in respect of the same instrument, he answers that he does not know. However, at the end, he has stated that it was only one instrument that was presented by him by way of deposit into current account.

¶107

19. In the overall context of the case, grant Of loan not disputed, execution of the documents is not disputed and the contention of the defendant is that he has wiped out the loan. Thus it is the case of discharge

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

by the defendant, but going through Ex.D.1, it could be seen that when he has deposited one instrument, Ex.D.8 in the circumstances for a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- as per Ex.D.1(a), it could not have been transferred from current account to letter of credit account for the very reason that as per Ex.D.1(b), the defendant has withdrawn a sum f Rs.6.00 akhs from his current account. Further, it is evident and admitted by the defendant DW.1 that he has presented only one instrument into the plaintiff bank for the amount of Rs.5,95,000/-. In the circumstances, the contention of the defendant No.1 that he has paid an amount of Rs.5,95,000/- to the bank falls to the ground and apparently it is not believable.

¶112

20. It is pertinent to note that the suit is not filed on current account balance, but, on the basis of letter of credit said to have been granted by the plaintiff bank. The first defendant has contested the case and the second defendant has not chosen to file written Statement and contest the case. The claim of the plaintiff is that the second defendant has created mortgage of the schedule property, which is not disputed. Thus, the plaintiff bank has proved that the defendant nos.1 and 2 have jointly executed inland letter of credit on 28.1.1999 and availed the facility. The plaintiff has proved that the second defendant has created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and moreover the said fact is not disputed by the defendant No.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of

¶113

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

Rs.5,98,974/- and the Court fee paid by him is Rs.39,314/-. In the circumstances, the Court fee is paid on the valuation of the subject matter and it is sufficient as on the date of filing of the suit. The claim of the defendant that he has paid the amount of Rs.5,95,000/to the plaintiff bank by way of discharge is clearly unbelievable and the defendant is not Justified in taking such false defence.”

¶116

22. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present appeal on the following:

¶117

GROUNDS

¶118

The impugned Judgment & Decree are erroneous and unsustainable both in law and on facts and the same are liable to be set aside.

¶119

The court below failed to note that the specific case of the plaintiff was with respect to the LOC (Letter of Credit) of Rs.5,98,974/- inclusive of interest and that was already discharged by the first appellant and therefore nothing was due by the first appellant with respect to the said Inland LOC.

¶120

The court below failed to note that the plaintiff had specifically complained in para 12 of the plaint that the bank is claiming Rs.5,92,974/- Inland Letter of Credit loan account (normally known as LOC) and it is not in serious dispute that the said amount is repaid and even otherwise also Rs.6.00 lakhs Fixed Deposit was with the

¶121

16 -

¶122

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

bank which the bank has not allowed the first appellant to withdraw and even otherwise the first appellant had the facility to the tune of Rs.50.00 lakhs. The court below ought to have dismissed the suit.

¶125

The court below failed to appreciate that the documents produced by the respondent-bank were such which could not have been relied upon or accepted since without payment of Rs.50.00 lakhs the bank had taken the OnDemand from the appellant stating that they would repay Rs.50.00 lakhs @ 20.40% interest and that document is marked as Exhibit P1 in the suit.

¶126

Similarly, the other documents produced by the respondent- bank were also such wherein they are all on a stereotype form without striking off the clauses which were inapplicable to the parties concerned.

¶127

The court below failed to appreciate that when the bank had Rs.6.00 lakhs of Fixed Deposit deposited by the first appellant and that he had a facility upto Rs.50.00 lakhs there was no reason for filing a suit for just Rs.5,98,974/- and therefore it is clearly a case where the bank has rushed to the court within a period of 1 year 8 months from the date of the facility granted though in the normal course the bank waits for the last moment and also takes endorsement for the extension of the period of limitation.

¶128

The court below got itself confused with various types of accounts like S.B., Current, Fixed Deposit and LOC and the suit was concerned with LOC and not with Current Account or S.B. or FD account and with regard to LOC there was total discharge of the amount but the court

¶129

17 -

¶130

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

has failed to appreciate it and that is the crux of the matter in the suit.

¶133

In fact, the court below failed to appreciate Ex.D8 in which it is specifically stated that Pay Order was towards discharge of LOC. The Exhibit D8 is the Pay Order given by the first appellant to the bank and on the over-leaf of the same it was specifically written as follows:

¶134

"The Pay Order is towards discharge of LC of Rs.10.28 lakhs. I already had FD of Rs.6.00 lakhs with you. Please cancel LC facility of Rs.50.00 lakhs and also return original documents to Smt. Akkayamma"

¶135

This is accepted by the bank under its seal and signature of the Manager.

¶136

Therefore under the circumstances, the court below failed to appreciate Ex.D8 and consequently resulted in miscarriage of justice.

¶137

The impugned Judgment & Decree are otherwise also erroneous and the same are liable to be set aside.

¶138

There is delay in filing the above appeal and therefore a separate application is filed showing sufficient cause for condonation of the same.

¶139

Sri R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contented that learned trial Judge did not notice the probative value of the documents placed on

¶140

18 -

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

record, especially the photocopy of the pay order and a statement of account marked at Exs.D7 to D8 and letter dated 04.04.2001 and 17.03.1999 marked at Exs.D.5 and D6 and thereby decreeing of the suit as aforesaid has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶144

Per contra, Sri D.S. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment.

¶145

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶146

On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration:

¶147

(i) Whether the defendants were successful in establishing that they have repaid the loan and therefore suit claim is not maintainable?

¶148

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and calls for interference?

¶149

(iii) What order?

¶150

27. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2 : These two points

¶151

are taken up together for avoiding the repetition of discussion of facts and law.

¶152

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

Admittedly, in the case on hand, the facility extended to the appellants/defendants vide Ex.P3 – agreement for inland letter of credit is not in dispute.

¶155

So also drawing of a letter of credit numbered as L.C.24/1999 in favour of B.R.Jewellers is not in dispute. The drawee of the L.C., discounting the said letter of credit is not in dispute. Therefore, sum of Rs.10,28,000/- was debited to the account of the defendants in the facility vide Ex.P3.

¶156

Despite repeated demands, defendants failed to clear the said liability of Rs.10,28,000/-. Left with no alternative, plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendants intending to make use of the proceeds of the fixed deposit in the name of defendant No.1 in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

¶157

Even after adjusting the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with accrued interest, there was a debit entry to the tune of Rs.4,79,825/- in respect of L.C.No.24/1999.

¶158

Admittedly, several reminders were issued by the bank on 21.07.1999, 28.08.1999, 08.12.1999 and on 16.03.2000, calling upon the defendants to pay the balance amount with accrued interest.

¶159

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

There was no response from the defendants which ultimately resulted in issuing of the legal notice on 20.05.2000, calling upon the defendants to pay sum Rs.5,98,794/- in respect of the balance amount under the L.C.No.24/1999. When there was no compliance, suit came to be filed.

¶162

Written statement contents clearly show that the defendants have taken the plea of repaying the entire amount.

¶163

Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have raised an issue, stating that “Whether the defendants would establish that they have repaid the balance amount in respect of L.C.No.24/1999?”. Instead, wrongly burden was placed on the plaintiff.

¶164

Nevertheless, plaintiff placed on record the documents vide Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 as referred to supra and discharged their burden.

¶165

When opening of the Inland Letter of Credit facility vide Ex.P3 is admitted by the defendants and when they have taken a plea that they have cleared the entire outstanding amount in respect of L.C.No.24/1999, it is for the defendants to establish by cogent evidence that they did so.

¶166

21 -

¶167

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

In discharging such a burden, the defendants have

¶170

placed on record the documents as referred to supra namely, the photocopy of the pay order and statement of accounts and letter dated 04.04.2001 and 17.03.1999.

¶171

Contents of Exs.D5 and D6 are extracted hereunder

¶172

for ready reference:

¶173

“ Ex.D-5

¶174

To, The Chairman The Federal Bank Ltd, Head office, Alwaye.

¶175

Dear Sir,

¶176

Reg : Settling of our dues.

¶177

We had availed credit facilities from your Gandhinagar Branch, Bangalore for our Bullion business. We are one of the leading dealers in Bullion in Bangalore and have been keeping our accounts with this branch and all the branches in Bangalore for more than 4 years.

¶178

In January 1999, Manager kindly sanctioned as a LC facility of Rs.50.00 Lakhs and opened one LC for 10.28 Lakhs. He refused to open more LC, but we do not know why. Because of this, we could not fulfill our business obligations and suffered heavy losses. Still because of the good relationship we had with the Bank, we cleared an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs from our own funds and a balance of Rs.4,07,686.00 was outstanding. Bank issued a lawyer's Notice to us. We

¶179

22 -

¶180

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

replied for that and requested for some time to clear the balance.

¶183

But suddenly, Bank filed a case against us for Rs.5,98,974.00 on 25.9.2000. As per the Lawyer's notice of 20.05.2000, our dues were Rs. 4,07,686.00 but by Sept. 2000 when case was filed against us, it has become Rs.5,98,974.00. Your Bank has charged me interest of Rs.1,91,288 for 6 months as above. This roughly comes to about 93% interest per annum. This is a very high rate of interest.

¶184

I was told by Manager of Gandhinagar Branch to meet Regional Head and discuss with him for a compromise. Accepting his advice I went and met Mr.Shashidharan, AGM at Bangalore on 26^th March 2001. I was very much shocked and surprised at his behavior and attitude. I had gone to him to settle my dues for which Bank has filed a case in court, but even without hearing me fully, he started shouting that I am a cheat, I have misused Bank's money and said that he knows how to take money from us and so on. He lastly told me that he will not discuss with me any compromise, but will take the money through Court.

¶185

I have been meeting officers of Federal Bank for over 10 years now, but no one has been so arrogant and rough as your AGM in Bangalore. He does not even have the basic courtesy of hearing other people, but only shouts at others. If he thinks he can get the money through court, let him get it and we will also fight it out and pay after the case is settled after 5 or 6

¶186

23 -

¶187

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

years. I had a good relationship with earlier Manager Mr.Unni Krishnan who sanctioned the loan was very kind to me and had supported me very much. He had sanctioned a TOD of Rs 4.00 lakhs from October 97 to February 98 to me. I did not want him to get any bad name because he had sanctioned me this loan. I wanted to clear it and went to meet your AGM.

¶190

I am bringing this to your notice so that you can instruct your AGM in Bangalore to be more polite to public and also to borrowers who go to him settling the loans of the Bank. I feel if he continues to behave like this, more and more people who may be willing to close their loans will be forced to settle the matter only in courts that too after many years. I feel that this not what your bank wants now, but would like the loans, even where cases are filed should be settled through compromise and have even set up separate offices to settle disputed loan cases as early as possible. I also heard that separate recovery Camps are held to recover the loans through compromise. When Bank is giving so much importance for loan recover as early as possible, here is your AGM, who shouts as customer who go to him and says he will recover the money through court.

¶191

I hope I have done my duty to bring the matter to your notice and expect you to do necessary action.

¶192

Yours faithfully, For SREE CHAMUNDI GLOBAL CO.,

¶193

Sd/(Dipak Joshi) Proprietor”.

¶194

24 -

¶195

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶196

HC-KAR

¶197

*“ Ex.D-6

¶198

No. 28, I Floor Anjaneya Temple, II Street, Link road, Bangalore -560 020 India Telefax: 0091-80-3312950 CELL : 9844017182 E-mail: [email protected]

¶199

SRI CHAMUNDI GLOBAL CO

¶200

17th March 1999

¶201

¶202

The Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd., Gandhingar (Branch) Bangalore -560 009

¶203

Dear Sir,

¶204

Reg: Amount due on account of development of letter of credit.

¶205

Ref: i) Credit Facility granted by you vide your sanction order No. BGRS/SOCN/LC/99 dated 28-01-99 for Rs.50 lakhs.

¶206

ii) Inland Irrevocable Resolving letter bearing No. BGRB/ 24/ 99 for Rs.10,28,000/-.

¶207

This is to inform you that you have sent above letter of Credit for Rs.10,28,000/- fallen due on payment / requirement on 30-4-99 for above. I have already given margin of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six lakhs only).

¶208

I have already deposited of Rs.5,95,000/- in my current Account 1526. Please refer above LC of Rs.10,28,000/- fallen due on 30-4-99 and allow us to

¶209

25 -

¶210

NC: 2025:KHC:41690 RFA No. 2334 of 2007

¶211

HC-KAR

¶212

withdraw property documents of Ms. Akkayamma as you have refused to grant for the facility of Rs.50 lacs.

¶213

I hope you will consider my request and clear L/C of Rs.10.28,000/- lakhs which is due on 30-04-99.

¶214

Thanking you,

¶215

Sd/-“

¶216

(*The original hand written copy of Ex.D.6 has been typed as far as it is legible.)

¶217

Further, photocopy of the pay order would not

¶218

discharge the burden cast on the defendants to establish that they have paid the amount to the plaintiff’s bank.

¶219

Under such circumstances, when the defendants have failed to establish that they have cleared the entire outstanding amount in respect of L.C.No.24/1999, decreeing of the suit by the trial Court, holding that the outstanding amount in respect of L.C.No.24/1999 in the account as per Ex.P3, is just and proper and therefore, requires no interference.

¶220