Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sudan on 18 April, 2011
State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA, JSCC-CUM-
ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE (WEST): DELHI
Suit No. 2379/08
Unique Case ID No._____________________
State Bank of India, A Body Corporate Constituted under
the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central office at
Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021, and
one of its Local Head Office(s) and Zonal Office(s) at 11,
Parliament Street and one of its Branches at South
Extension - II, New Delhi - 110001.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sudan,
R/o DA - 83E, LIG Flats,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
Also at:
Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sudan, EMP No.2009
Senior Manager (P & A),
Airport Authority of India,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Assistant Manager (Personal)
R.C.D.U.,
Airports Authority of India,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi-110003. .....Defendants
Date of filing of the suit : 05.03.2004
Date of reserving order : 30.03.2011
Date of pronouncement : 18.04.2011
JUDGMENT
Suit no.2379/08
1 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
1. The plaintiff-bank, through its Assistant General Manager/Principal Officer Sh. Naveen Sethi, filed the suit against the defendants for a decree of recovery of Rs. 53,490/-together with pendente lite and future interest @ 15.25% per annum with monthly rests.
2. The case set out in the plaint is that on 22.02.2001, the defendant no.1 had approached the plaintiff-bank for grant of personal loan. On 15.03.2001, the plaintiff-bank sanctioned and disbursed a personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the defendant no.1 vide Personal Loan Account no. 01592057223. The said loan amount was repayable in 24 Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) of Rs.7,395/- each commencing from April, 2001. The defendant no.1 had executed Personal Loan Agreement, D.P.Note and D. P. Note delivery Letter in favour of the plaintiff-bank on 15.03.2001. The rate of interest was 16.25% per annum with quarterly rests calculated on daily basis subject to variation. It is stated that the rate of interest is presently 15.25% per annum with monthly rests.
3. The defendant no.2 had executed an irrevocable undertaking in favour of the plaintiff-bank and undertaken to deduct a sum of Rs.7,395/- per month from the salary of the defendant no.1 and remit the same to the plaintiff-bank till repayment of entire loan amount and therefore, the defendant no.2 is jointly and severally liable to pay the Suit no.2379/08 2 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
outstanding amount to the plaintiff-bank.
4. The case of the plaintiff-bank is that the loan account of the defendant no.1 became irregular due to non-payment of installments. The defendant no.1 failed to regularize the loan account despite repeated requests and letters. It is stated that the plaintiff-bank had requested the defendant no.1 vide letter dated 30.09.2002 and letter dated 17.06.2003 to regularize the loan account. The plaintiff-bank had also requested the defendant no.2 vide letter dated 27.06.2003 and 15.10.2003 to impress upon the defendant no.1 to regularize his loan account. The defendant no.2 had asked for a copy of undertaking vide letter dated 15.10.2003 and the plaintiff-bank had provided a copy thereof. The plaintiff-bank served a notice dated 17.09.2003 upon the defendants and asked them to pay the entire amount due from the defendant no.1 but the defendants failed to comply with the said notice. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 55,490/- was due from the defendant no.1 as on 04.03.2004 as per Books of Account maintained by the plaintiff-bank. The defendants failed to repay the loan amount despite letters and notice and therefore, the plaintiff-bank filed this suit for recovery against the defendants.
5. The suit was registered on 08.03.2004 and summons of the suit were ordered to be issued to the defendants. Despite several efforts, the defendant no.1 could not be Suit no.2379/08 3 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
served with the ordinary process. On being satisfied that the defendant no.1 could not be served through ordinary process, he was ordered to be served by way of publication in the newspaper 'National Herald'. Vide order dated 22.11.2005, the defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte.
6. In the Written Statement, the defendant no.2 stated that the Assistant Manager (Personal) is not capable to sue or be sued for and on behalf of Airports Authority of India. The Assistant Manager (Personal) has no authority to issue any undertaking for and on behalf of Airports Authority of India. The suit is not maintainable against Airports Authority of India as the Authority had no concern with the sanction and disbursement of loan to the defendant no.1 and the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the defendant no.2. The office of the defendant no.2 had not executed irrevocable undertaking, as alleged. It is stated that Sh. S. R. Kaler, Manager (P & A) had never signed any irrevocable letter of authority in favour of the plaintiff-bank for grant of personal loan to the defendant no.1. It is stated that the said undertaking is a forged document. It is stated that the plaintiff-bank had never confirmed from the defendant no.2 about the employment of the defendant no.1. It is stated that Disciplinary Proceedings have been initiated against the defendant no.1 for his acts. The defendant no.1 had paid monthly installments till August, 2002. It is stated that the defendant no.1 was transferred to Ahmedabad Airport and he was relieved from the office on 12.12.2003 but since Suit no.2379/08 4 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
then, he has not reported on duty and his whereabouts are not known. It is stated that the contract of loan was between the plaintiff-bank and the defendant no.1 and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff-bank and the defendant no.2. It is stated that the plaintiff-bank has no cause of action against the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 is not jointly and severally liable for the said loan.
7. Vide order dated 22.05.2006, the defendant no.2 was restrained from releasing terminal benefits/dues to the extent of the suit amount of Rs.53,490/- till further orders.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15.09.2006.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Rs.
53,490.59/-, as claimed in the suit? OPP
2. To what interest, if any, plaintiff is entitled to on the above amount and if so, for what period and at what rate?
OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant no.2 for want of privity of contract? OPD
4. Relief
9. In the evidence, the plaintiff-bank examined Sh. Narender Kumar (PW1) who was Assistant Manager (Loans) of the plaintiff-bank and Mrs. Manjula Maheshwari (PW2) who was Field Officer of the plaintiff-bank whereas the Suit no.2379/08 5 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
defendant no.2 examined Sh. S. R. Kaler (D2W1) who was the Assistant Manager (P & A) and Sh. N. Balachandran (D2W2) presently posted as Assistant Manager (Personal) in support of their respective case.
10. I have heard arguments of Ms. Jaya Tomar, Adv. for the plaintiff and Sh. Sunil Ahuja, Adv. for the defendant no.2 and considered the written arguments and evidence on record. ISSUE NO.3:
11. Issue no. 3 is taken first for determination. Onus to prove the issue no.3 was placed on the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 in its written statement contended that the suit is not maintainable against the defendant no.2 for want of privity of contract. The defendant no.2 contended that the Airports of Authority of India has no concern with the loan transaction between the plaintiff-bank and the defendant no.1. It is contended that the Assistant Manager (Personal) has no power to issue any undertaking for and on behalf of the Airports Authority of India. It is contended that the irrevocable undertaking Ex.PW-1/6 is a forged and procured document. It is contended that Sh. S. R. Kaler, Assistant Manager (Personal) had never signed or issued any irrevocable letter of authority for grant of personal loan to the defendant no.1. It is contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed against the defendant no.2 with costs.
12. The case of the plaintiff-bank, as pleaded in para no.7 of the plaint is that the defendant no.2 had signed an Suit no.2379/08 6 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
irrevocable undertaking in favour of the plaintiff-bank and had undertaken to deduct the monthly installment amount from the salary of the defendant no.2 and remit the said amount to the plaintiff-bank till repayment of the entire loan amount. The defendant no.2 failed to deduct and remit the installments to the plaintiff-bank despite letters and therefore, the defendant no.2 is jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff-bank.
13. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 vehemently argued that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a Government Undertaking. He argued that AAI brought into existence on 01.04.1995 under Airports Authority of India, Act, 1994. He argued that the suit against the Assistant Manager (Personal) is not maintainable as the Assistant Manager (Personal) is not capable to sue or be sued for and on behalf of AAI. He argued that Sh. S. R. Kaler, Asst. Manager (Personal) never signed or issued any irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6. He argued that Sh. S. R. Kaler (D2W1) deposed that he had never signed or issued any irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 for and on behalf of AAI. He argued that the depositions of D2W1 remained un- challenged. He argued that the plaintiff - bank had sanctioned the loan without following the rules and verifying the documents submitted by the defendant no.1. He argued that Mark C is an identity card issued by National Airports Authority of India whereas there was no such Authority in 2001 at the time of sanctioning and disbursal of loan to the Suit no.2379/08 7 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
defendant no.1. He argued that the Employee No. of the defendant no.1 is mentioned as 646 in the Form 16 Mark A whereas Employee No. of the defendant no.1 is mentioned as 0112 in the identity card Mark C. He argued that the identity card does not bear the signature of the holder or date of issuance. He argued that the plaintiff-bank had not verified the genuineness of the documents submitted by the defendant no.1. He argued that the AAI was not a party to the loan transaction. He argued that the defendant no.2 was un-necessarily made party to the suit.
14. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that Sh. Narender Kumar (PW-1) had verified the irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 from the office of the defendant no. 2. She argued that PW-1 deposed that Ex.PW-1/6 was signed and sealed by duly authorized representative of the defendant no.2. She argued that the plaintiff-bank had sanctioned and disbursed loan to the defendant no.1 on the basis of the irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6. She argued that the defendant no.2 had giving undertaking vide Ex.PW-1/6 that in case of death, retirement, resignation or discontinuance from the service, the defendant no.2 will make payment of any amount due to the plaintiff-bank from the defendant no.1 and such payment shall be deemed to be a payment to the defendant no.1 or to his account and therefore, the defendant no.2 is jointly and severally liable to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff-bank. She argued that the PW-1 denied the suggestion that there was any Suit no.2379/08 8 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
negligence on his part in inquiring or checking the correctness or genuineness and that the document Ex.PW-1/6 is forged. She argued that the PW-2 had met Mr. G. L. Verma, Assistant Manager and informed him about irrevocable undertaking Ex.PW-1/6, and provided a copy of the said undertaking. She argued that the defendant no.2 failed to pay the due of the plaintiff-bank despite letter dated 27.06.2003 Ex.PW-2/2 and 15.10.2003 Ex.PW-2/3, and notice dated 17.09.2003 Ex.PW-2/5. She argued that the defendant no.2 is a necessary party to the suit and there is a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2, and the suit is maintainable against the defendant no.
2.
15. From the perusal of the irrevocable letter of authority Ex. PW-1/6, it is apparent that the defendant no.2 had merely certified that the defendant no.1 was a permanent employee of the Airports Authority of India and drawing gross salary of Rs.26,832/- per month. By way of irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6, the defendant no.1 had authorized the defendant no.2 to deduct a sum of Rs.7,395/- from his salary with effect from April, 2001 and remit the said amount to the plaintiff-bank to credit the said amount to his loan account, and further authorized the defendant no.2 to make payment of any amount payable to the defendant no.1 in case of his death, retirement, resignation or discontinuing the service to the plaintiff-bank and such payment shall be deemed to be a payment to the defendant Suit no.2379/08 9 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
no.1 or to his account. By way of irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6, the defendant no.2 had not given any undertaking to the plaintiff-bank, or bound itself to repay the loan amount.
16. PW-1 Sh. Narender Kumar was the Assistant Manager (Loans) of the plaintiff-bank at the time of sanctioning and disbursal of the loan to the defendant no.1. In his depositions, PW-1 deposed that the defendant no.1 signed the Application Form dated 22.01.2001 Ex.PW-1/1 in his presence. He deposed that the defendant no.1 had executed, signed and delivered the Personal Loan Agreement Ex.PW-1/2, D.P.Note Ex.PW-1/3 and D.P.Note delivery letter Ex.PW-1/5 on 15.03.2001 in his presence. He deposed that he had processed and recommended the said loan.
17. PW-1 deposed that the defendant no.1 had submitted salary slip Ex.PW-1/5, copy of Form 16 Mark A, copy of Election I Card Mark B, Copy of Identity Card Mark C, Electricity Bill Mark D and Ration Card Mark E. He deposed that he had compared the said documents with the original documents and the defendant no.1 had put his signatures on the said documents in his presence. He deposed that the defendant no.2 had executed and signed an irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 in favour of the plaintiff-bank for deducting a sum of Rs.7,395/- per month from the salary of the defendant no.1 and remit the said amount to the Suit no.2379/08 10 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
plaintiff-bank till the repayment of the entire loan amount. PW-1 has not stated that the defendant no.2/Assistant Manager (Personal) had signed and executed the irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 in favour of the plaintiff-bank in his presence. Further, He deposed that the irrevocable undertaking Ex.PW-1/6 was handed over by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff-bank. He deposed that he had verified the said undertaking Ex.PW-1/6 from the office of the defendant no.2. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the Ex.PW-1/6 was submitted by the defendant no.1 along with his loan application. He admitted that there is official record with regard to verification and inquiry about the correctness and genuineness of the Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6. He deposed that inquiry was recorded in a separate register. He has not produced the said register. He admitted that he had not physically verified the personal references of the defendant no.1 mentioned at point X and Y on Ex.PW-1/1.
18. PW-1 could not state the name or designation of the officer visited by him for verification of documents. He could not state the date of his visit for verification of documents. It is therefore, apparent that the loan was sanctioned at the request of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 had submitted the salary slip Ex.PW-1/5 and irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 along with his application for grant of loan Ex.PW-1/1. The irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 does not bear any file number, reference number Suit no.2379/08 11 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
or dispatch number of the defendant no.2. The plaintiff-bank had not verified the authenticity of the Ex.PW-1/6 and authority of the Assistant Manager (Personal) to issue irrevocable letter of authority for and on behalf of the Airports Authority of India.
19. D2W1 Sh. S. R. Kaler who was the Assistant Manager (Personal), AAI in 2001. He categorically deposed that letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 does not bear his signatures. He deposed that he had never signed or issued such undertaking for and on behalf of the Airports Authority of India. He deposed that his signatures appearing on Ex.PW-1/6 are forged. D2W2 Assistant Manager (Personal) stated that there is no official record pertaining to issuance of Ex.PW-1/6. He deposed that AAI provides loan for house building, conveyance and computer loans and there was no occasion for issuance of irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6. He deposed that there is no record pertaining to verification of credentials of the defendant no.1 or issuance of irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 and AAI had no knowledge regarding processing and disbursal of loan till 17.09.2003.
20. According to the D2W2, the AAI had received a letter dated 17.09.2003 and thereafter, the AAI had immediately asked the plaintiff-bank to provide irrevocable undertaking vide letter dated 15.10.2003. He deposed that AAI had informed the plaintiff-bank vide letter dated 04.04.2006 that it had sanctioned the loan without following the prescribed Suit no.2379/08 12 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
rules and verifying the documents submitted by the defendant no.1 and that the office of the defendant no.2 had not given approval/undertaking for recovery of loan installments.
21. It is evident that the defendant no.2 neither requested the plaintiff bank for grant of loan to the defendant no.1 nor undertaken to deduct and remit the monthly installments from the salary of the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff bank. The defendant no.1 had submitted the said irrevocable letter of authority to the plaintiff-bank along with his application for grant of loan. The plaintiff-bank made no effort to verify the authenticity, legality and authority of the issuing authority. The irrevocable letter of authority Ex.PW-1/6 is not in the nature of a contract of guarantee. At the most, it is an authorization by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2 to deduct monthly installments from his salary w.e.f. April, 2001 and remit the said amount to the plaintiff-bank. Mere fact that the defendant no.1 was an employee of the defendant no.1 is sufficient to fasten liability of the outstanding amount to the defendant no.2. Letters Ex.PW-2/2 to Ex.PW-2/4 and personal visits by PW-2 cannot create a contract of guarantee between the plaintiff- bank and the defendant no.2.
22. It is therefore, held that the defendant no.2 had never given undertaking to secure the repayment of loan amount advanced to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 had Suit no.2379/08 13 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
availed loan from the plaintiff-bank in his personal capacity. PW-1 deposed that the loan was advanced to the defendant no.1 on the basis of his paying capacity as he was employed with the defendant no.2/AAI as Senior Manager (P & A) and drawing gross salary of Rs.26,832/-. The defendant no.2 was un-necessarily impleaded in the suit without any valid cause. The defendant no.2 had no concern with the loan transaction between the plaintiff-bank and the defendant no.1.
23. The plaintiff-bank had no cause of action against the defendant no.2. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. The suit of the plaintiff- bank against the defendant no.2 is liable to be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the defendant no. 2 and against the plaintiff bank.
ISSUE NO.2 AND 3:
24. Onus to prove the issue no.2 and 3 was upon the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff-bank examined Sh. Narender Kumar (PW-1) who was Assistant Manager (Loans) from January, 2001 to June, 2001. He had dealt with the loan transaction with the defendant no.1. He had processed the loan application and recommended the loan to the defendant no.1. The loan application dated 22.02.2001 bears his signature at point A.
25. PW-1 deposed that the loan documents were signed by Suit no.2379/08 14 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff-bank in his presence. He deposed that the Personal Loan Agreement was signed by him on behalf of the plaintiff-bank. He proved the loan application Ex.PW-1/1, Personal Loan Agreement Ex.PW-1/2, Demand Promissory Note Ex.PW-1/3 and D. P. Note Delivery Letter Ex.PW-1/4. He deposed that the defendant no.1 had submitted his salary slip Ex.PW-1/5, Form 16 Mark A, Election I Card Mark B, Identity Card Mark C, Electricity Bill Mark D and Ration Card Mark E. He deposed that the defendant no.2 had executed an irrevocable power of authority Ex.PW-1/6. He deposed that the plaintiff-bank had sanctioned and disbursed a personal loan of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant no.1 on 15.03.2001. He deposed that the said loan amount was credit to the loan account of the defendant no.1 bearing personal account no. 01592057223. He deposed that the loan amount was repayable in 24 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.7,395/- commencing from April, 2001.
26. PW-2 was working a Field Officer with the plaintiff-bank from February, 2003 to December, 2006. She deposed that Sh. B. S. Rawat vide letter dated 30.09.2002 Mark F to the defendant no.1 to regularize his account. She deposed that she had sent a letter dated 17.06.2003 Ex.PW-2/1 to the defendant no.1 to regularize his account. She deposed that the plaintiff-bank had sent a notice dated 17.09.2003 to the defendant no.1 Ex.PW-2/5 and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.47,577.34/- due from him. She deposed that a sum of Rs.
Suit no.2379/0815 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
52,153/- was due from the defendant no.1 on 31.12.2003.
27. PW-2 further deposed that a further amount of Rs. 1337.33/- was due from the defendant no.1 on account of interest from 01.01.2004 to 04.03.2004. She proved the Statement of Account Ex.PW-2/12 duly certified under Banker's Books of Evidence Act. She deposed that Sh. Naveen Sethi, then Assistant General Manager/Principal Officer of the plaintiff-bank filed the present suit. She identified his signatures of Sh. Naveen Sethi as she had worked with him.
28. Sh. Naveen Sethi, Assistant General Manager of the plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery against the defendants. He was a principal officer of the plaintiff bank. He was authorized to file the suit for recovery of dues of the plaintiff bank. Therefore, it is hereby held that the suit was filed a duly authorized officer of the plaintiff-bank.
29. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and documentary evidence, it is proved that the defendant no.1 applied for grant of personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 22.02.2001 Ex. PW-1/1 for purchasing Computer and house repair. The defendant no.1 had executed loan documents Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/4 in favour of the plaintiff-bank on 15.03.2001. The plaintiff-bank had sanctioned and disbursed the said loan amount to the defendant no.1. The loan amount was credited to the personal loan account no. 01592057223 of the defendant no.1 on 15.03.2001. The Suit no.2379/08 16 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
defendant no.1 had agreed to pay interest @ 4.75% p.a. above the State Bank Advance Rate with a minimum of 16.25% p.a. calculated on daily balance of loan amount with quarterly rests.
30. The said loan amount was repayable in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs. 7395/- each commencing from April, 2001. The defendant no.1 failed to pay the installments regularly and therefore, his loan account became irregular. The plaintiff bank had written letter dated 30.09.2002 Mark F, letter dated 17.06.2003 Ex.PW-2/1 and notice dated 17.09.2003 Ex.PW-2/5 to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 failed to pay the outstanding amount. According to the statement of account of the defendant no.1 Ex. PW-2/12 maintained by the plaintiff bank in its regular course of business and duly certified under Banker's Books of Evidence Act, a sum of Rs. 53,490/- was due from the defendant no.1 on the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant no.1.
31. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff bank referred Loan documents Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/4 and prayed for interest @ 15.25% p.a. with monthly rests. Section 34, CPC vests discretion in the Court to award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the filing of the suit till realization. The liability of the defendant no.1 has not arisen out of commercial transaction. The loan was disbursed to the defendant no.1 Suit no.2379/08 17 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
for house repair and computer. The defendant no.1 has already been retired from service on 31.10.2005. The suit amount was attached by the Court vide order dated 22.05.2006. Interest as prayed by the plaintiff bank is on higher side. In the opinion of the Court, grant of pendente- lite and future interest @ 9% p.a. on the suit amount will be just and reasonable.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Issue no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant no1.
Relief
33. In view of the finding on the issue no.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff-bank is decreed against the defendant no.1 with costs and a decree for recovery of Rs. 53,490/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff-bank and against the defendant no. 1 together with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum.
34. In view of the finding on the issue no.3, the suit of the plaintiff-bank is dismissed against the defendant no.2 with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
35. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
36. File be consigned to Record Room.
Order announced in the open Court.
Suit no.2379/0818 of 19 State Bank of India v. Jatinder Kumar Sudan & Ors.
(SANJAY SHARMA) JSCC-Cum-ASCJ-Cum GUARDIAN JUDGE (West) Delhi: 18.04.2011.
Suit no.2379/0819 of 19