Central Bank Of India vs M/S Hind Silai Machine Traders
2023 Latest Caselaw 2719 MP

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT JABALPUR
                                               BEFORE
                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                   ON THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                   SECOND APPEAL NO.1271 OF 2015
                          BETWEEN:-

                          1.    CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
                                THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER,
                                CENTRAL         OFFICE,
                                CHANDRAMUKHI,  NARIMAN
                                POINT, MUMBAI.

                          2.    CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
                                THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,
                                NEAR NEW RAM MANDIR,
                                GONDIYA ROAD, BALAGHAT,
                                DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.)

                                                                  .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI SUDEEP CHATERJEE - ADVOCATE)

                          AND

                          1.    M/S. HINDU SILAI MACHINE
                                TRADERS, THROUGH PRADEEP
                                KUMAR S/O D.L. SAHU, AGED
                                ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MARRAI
                                MUHALLA, BALAGHAT, TEHSIL
                                AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT
                                (M.P.)

                          2.    SMT.   YASHODHARA SAINI,
                                AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O
                                SITA RAM SAINI, R/O NEAR
                                VINRAJIK       VIDYALAYA,
                                BALAGHAT,    TEHSIL    AND
                                DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.)


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 2/16/2023
1:33:56 PM
                                                             -   2 -



                                                                                   ....RESPONDENTS

                                (BY MS. PRIYAL RAHANGDALE - ADVOCATE FOR THE
                                RESPONDENT 2)
                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court
                          passed the following:
                                                         ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1-2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2015 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat, in civil appeal no.1-B/2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2006 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Balaghat in civil suit no.35- B/2002, whereby suit filed by respondent 1/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.31,000/- along with notice expenses Rs.500/-, interest Rs.4,450/- with effect from 28.02.2002 to 28.09.2002 and interest @ 6% per annum with effect from date of suit till realization, has been decreed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on the document (Ex.P/1) submits that the loan of an amount of Rs.31,000/- was sanctioned to the defendant 3 Smt. Yashodhara Saini, in pursuance of which, the plaintiff M/s. Hind Silai Machine Traders was to supply sewing machine bearing ISI mark as well as ISI number, but the plaintiff did not supply the machine having ISI mark and number, therefore, the defendants 1-2 were not liable to make the payment to the plaintiff and the machines supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant 3, have already been returned to the plaintiff and the learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit. He submits that in presence of the aforesaid facts, learned Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 2/16/2023 1:33:56 PM

- 3 -

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Undisputedly, the loan was sanctioned by the appellants/defendants 1-2 to the defendant 3 and as per assurance given by the appellants by way of document (Ex.P/1), the plaintiff had supplied sewing machines to the defendant 3. The factum/contention of the defendants/appellants in relation to return of the machines by defendant 3 to the plaintiff, has not been found proved in absence of any documentary evidence.

6. Further, in view of ground no.(D) taken in the memo of second appeal to the effect that "Courts below erred in considering the other cases wherein the appellants-Bank has relaxed the mandatory condition of quality control i.e. machinery should be ISI mark", it cannot be said that the defendants/Bank was not liable to pay the amount as agreed/sanctioned by way of document (Ex.P/1) which is a delivery order dated 24.02.2002.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any involvement of substantial question of law in the present second appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC. However, no order as to the costs.

8. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 2/16/2023 1:33:56 PM