Ct. 8 vs The State Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4724 Cal

                                           FAT 575 of 2001
Item-4.                          CAN 1 of 2001 (old CAN 1673 of 2001)
          03-08-2023

  sg                                     Mir Sekendar Ali & Ors.
            Ct. 8                                  Versus
                                         The State Bank of India



                       1.

The parties are not represented nor any accommodation is

prayed for on their behalf.

2. The appeal is pending since 2001. The appeal was appearing

in the warning list of cases on and from 31st July, 2023 with a

clear indication that the said matter shall be transferred to the

main list on 3rd August, 2023 before this Bench. In spite of

adequate notice, the appellant is not represented.

3. Although an application for condonation of delay has been

filed but the Stamp Reporter has reported that the appeal is in

time. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay

stands disposed of with the recording that the appeal is filed

within time. CAN 1 of 2001 (old CAN 1673 of 2001) is

disposed of.

4. The appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree dated 18th

August, 2000. The State Bank of India is the appellant. They

have filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,08,993/-.

The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on contest. The

learned Trial Judge relied upon the renewal letter of the bank

and also the acknowledgment of the loan of the defendants as

late as on 14th January, 1998. The appellant contended before

the learned Trial Court that due to mechanical defects they

could not operate tractor and they have prayed for exemption

of the interest and granting instalment in payment of the

amount claimed by the plaintiff bank. The learned Trial

Judge came to a finding that it is a commercial transaction

and there is no scope to reduce the interest agreed upon by

and between the parties. The appellant also could not show

that the said tractor within one year of purchase had started

malfunctioning. On such consideration, the suit was decreed.

5. In the appeal it is urged that it was an agricultural loan. In

absence of any document being made available to this Court,

we are not in a position to accept the said loan as an

agricultural loan.

6. On the basis of the materials on record, we do not find any

error in the judgment. The appeal stands dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

  (Uday Kumar, J.)                          (Soumen Sen, J.)