Karnataka High Court
Union Bank Of India vs Dr. Niranjan Gowda on 4 March, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8989
CRP No. 255 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 255 OF 2014 (SC)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA
(E-CORPORATION BANK)
No.40, 6TH A MAIN,
9TH CROSS, 3RD PHASE,
J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER,
SRI.VALERIAN CASTELINO.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V B RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. NIRANJAN GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A NO.2309, 21ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN
BSK 2ND STAGE, K R ROAD
Digitally BANGALORE-560070.
signed by
KIRAN WORKING AS PATHOLOGIST
KUMAR R
SANJAY GANDHI HOSPITAL
Location:
HIGH JAYANAGAR T BLOCK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560011.
2. DR K S VEDARAJU
MAJOR
R/A NO.4039
NEW 5TH CROSS
GAYATHIR NAGAR
BANGALORE-560021
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8989
CRP No. 255 of 2014
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSE
COURTS ACT AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
18.03.2014 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1949/2008 ON THE FILE OF
THE X ASCJ & XXXV ACMM, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The Union Bank of India is in revision. The Bank had
instituted a suit seeking recovery of Rs.90,970/- along
with future interest at the rate of 18.25% per annum.
2. It was the case of the Bank that it had sanctioned a
loan of Rs.3,55,000/- to defendant No.1, and defendant
No.2 had stood as a surety to the said loan. It was stated
that defendant No.1 had also executed a Promissory Note
on 31.01.2003 agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36
equal monthly installments of Rs.12,005/- and he had
hypothecated his equipment, such as Ultrasound
Diagnostic System, and also executed an Hypothecation
Deed in favour of the Bank.
3. It was stated that since defendant No.1 had failed to
make payments, he was called upon to acknowledge his
NC: 2024:KHC:8989
loan liability and he had accordingly acknowledged that he
was liable for the outstanding amount by executing
another Promissory Note on 08.03.2006.
4. It was stated that since, thereafter also defendant
No.1 defaulted in making the payments despite a Demand
Notice being issued to him, the Bank had no other option
but to file the suit, which incidentally was filed on
20.12.2008.
5. The case of the defendants was that the suit was
barred by limitation as it was not filed within three years
of the loan being sanctioned, i.e., within three years from
08.03.2003. It was also stated that the Bank had got an
amount of Rs.51,165/- transferred from the Savings Bank
Account of defendant No.1 on 06.02.2009, after the filing
of the suit towards the full and final settlement of the loan
and therefore, the loan had stood discharged.
6. It was the specific case of defendant No.1 that the
Bank had assured him that it would withdraw this suit
NC: 2024:KHC:8989
since the loan account was closed, but the suit was not
withdrawn and was continued to be prosecuted. In other
words, the case of defendant No.1 was that the loan was
time-barred since his suit had been filed on 20.12.2008 in
respect of a loan availed in the year 2003 and also on the
ground that the loan stood discharged by the transfer of
the sum of Rs.51,165/- from the Savings Bank Account of
defendant No.1.
7. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, has
recorded a clear finding that the acknowledgment of debt
vide Exhibit: P-7 was actually signed on 08.03.2006. The
Trial Court has taken note of the admission of PW-1 during
the course of his cross-examination, in which he has
admitted that it was true that the defendants had
executed Exhibits: P-2 to P-8 in favour of the Bank on
08.03.2003 and it has, therefore, come to the conclusion
that the contention that the debt was acknowledged on
08.03.2006 could not be accepted.
NC: 2024:KHC:8989
8. It has, thereafter, taken note of the fact that the
acknowledgment of debt made in the year 2006 would be
of no avail in view of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
9. As regards the claim on merits, the Trial Court has
noticed that, as per Exhibit D-1, which was maintained by
the Bank in respect of the loan availed by defendant No.1,
it was indicated that on 06.02.2009, a sum of Rs.51,165/-
was transferred from the Savings Bank Account of
defendant No.1 to the loan account of defendant No.1, and
an entry was made that the account was closed.
10. The Trial Court has noticed that the Bank entry made
in Exhibit: D-1 regarding the transfer and adjustment to
his loan amount indicated that there was no loan amount
outstanding.
11. In my view, in the light of the clear admission by
PW-1 that the acknowledgment of debt was made on
08.03.2006, i.e., beyond three years and having regard to
the further fact that the Trial Court has noticed that there
NC: 2024:KHC:8989
was a transfer of Rs.51,165/- from the Savings Bank
Account of defendant No.1 to his loan account and an
entry is found that the loan was closed, the Trial Court was
perfectly justified in dismissing the suit.
12. I find no reason to entertain the revision petition and
the same is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT: SN
