Delhi High Court
Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Karol ... vs Shri Devinder Singh And Ors. on 1 August, 2001
Author: V Aggarwal
Bench: V Aggarwal
ORDER
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter described as "the plaintiff") has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 6,56,749.58 paise against the defendants.
2. The facts alleged are that defendant No.1 (Davinder Singh) had approached the plaintiff bank and requested fro the term loan facility for purchase of two Tata Trucks' chassis and bodies, to be fabricated against the hypothecation in the month of April 1986. The plaintiff-bank considered the request of defendant No.1 and released the term loan of Rs. 4,52,310/- on 12.4.1986 for purchase of two new Tata Trucks against hypothecation of the said vehicles. Defendants 2 and 3, namely, Smt. Ram Maruti Anand and Shri Rakesh Arora stood as guarantors. In consideration of the said loan amount, the defendants executed the following documents:-
(i) Demand Promissory note dated 24.5.86 (LF-2) for Rs. 4,52,310.00 by defendant No.1.
(ii) Letter of Waiver (LF-3) dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.1.
(iii) Letter of request, take delivery and continuity letter dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.1.
(iv) Deed of hypothecation of vehicles (S-189) dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.1.
(v) Affidavits dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.1.
(vi) Agreement relating to Term Loan dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.1.
(vii) Deed of Guarantee (S-172) dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.2.
(viii) Undertaking dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.1.
(ix) Deed of Guarantee (S-172) dated 24.5.86 by defendant No.3.
(x) S-11 dated 24.5.86 executed and signed by defendant No.2.
3. Liability of defendants 2 & 3 was co-extensive with defendant No.1. The loan was repayable in 36 monthly Installments. In the first year the defendants were to pay rs. 17,000/- per month, in the second month Rs. 16,000/- per month and in the third year Rs. 15,000/- per month. The first Installment was payable after two months from the date of the advance. In pursuance of the agreement and completion of the execution of documents, the plaintiff bank gave two drafts of Rs. 2,21,065 and two pay orders of Rs. 45,000/- each. The above payments were made by debiting the term loan and saving account in which the defendant No.1 deposited the margin money.
4. M/s. Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited acknowledged the demand draft for Rs. 2,21,065/- towards the cost of one Tata truck and for the second new Tata Truck, the said party retruned the draft. Defendant No.1 had approached M/s. TELCO New Delhi for the delivery of one new Tata truck, who issued their proforma invoice and then the plaintiff bank issued fresh pay order for Rs. 2,18,025/-. M/s. TELCO New Delhi issued the receipt for the same. M/s. Amrik Singh Body Builders issued the receipt in token of having received Rs. 45,000/- for fabrication of the truck bodies. Defendant No.1 had taken the delivery of the trucks. The same were registered in the joint names of the borrower and the plaintiff bank.
5. Defendant No.1 approached for the term loan to the tune of Rs. 26,700/- for the purchase of 12 new tyres against hypothecation of the same. Defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors. In connection with the said term loan, defendants executed the documents, namely, the demand promissory note dated 24.5.1986, the letter of waiver, letter of request, deed of hypothecation, an undertaking, deed of guarantee by defendants 2 and 3 and term loan agreement. It is alleged that hardly and payments have been made except certain payments, which have been entered in the accounts. In this connection, it is asserted, therefore, that the amount claimed is due and hence the present suit.
6. Defendants have been proceeded ex parte and evidence has been led by affidavits.
7. The affidavit of Smt. Shashi Bhalla proves that defendant No.1 approached for the loan for purchase of new trucks for Rs. 4,52,310/-, which request was allowed. The vouchers pertaining to the loans are Ex.PW-1/1 to PW-1/10. Defendants 2 and 3 have stood as guarantors. The same fact is proved from Ex.PW-1/19 and PW-1/20.
8. Similar affidavit has been field by B.P.S. Makkar, Manager posted atm Chaori Bazar branch of the plaintiff. He proves that defendant No.1 approached for term loan for purchase of new trucks. Later they requested for term loan for purchase of 12 new truck tyres. Documents in this regard were executed, which have been proved as Ex.PW-3/1 to PW-3/3. The undertaking of the defendants regarding repayment of the loan was executed on 24.5.1986.
9. Perusal of the evidence on record clearly shows that the tem loan referred to above, alleged by the plaintiff had been taken and defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for defendant No.1.
10. It is also corroborated from the statement of account of defendant no.1, which is on record and has been so admitted during the course of admission and denial of documents. It clearly establishes that the amount claimed is due from defendant No.1 with defendants 2 and 3 as the guarantors.
11. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed fro Rs. 6,56,749-58 paise with future interest @ 14.5% per annum on the principal amount from the date of the filling of the suit till realization.
