Delhi District Court
Canara Bank vs M/S Asha Chemicals & Others on 3 January, 2008
- :: 1 :: -
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : DELHI
In the matter of: -
Suit No. 274/2003.
Canara Bank. ... Plaintiff.
Vs.
M/s Asha Chemicals & Others. ... Defendants.
- : ORDER : -
1.By this order, I propose to dispose of an application u/o 11 r 12 CPC of the defendant no. 3 wherein he has prayed for directing the plaintiff to place on record papers and registers regarding the revocation of guarantee by the defendant no. 3. It is alleged that the
- :: 2 :: -
said documents are in possession of the plaintiff bank.
2.In reply, the plaintiff has opposed the application stating that no such revocation of guarantee was ever done by the defendant no. 3 and there are no such documents in possession of the plaintiff bank as alleged in the application. All other averments have been controverted and denied.
3.I have heard the learned counsel Sh. Anil Panwar for plaintiff and Sh. Rajiv Mangla for defendant no. 3 and have gone through the record carefully. In the application, the defendant no. 3 has not stated as to when he has visited the plaintiff bank and by what mode he has revoked the bank guarantee. The learned counsel for defend no. 3 is relying upon the letter sent by the defendant no. 3 by post to the plaintiff as reminder to the plaintiff bank for revocation of bank
- :: 3 :: -
guarantee allegedly done by the defendant no. 3. Neither any date nor any place has been specified as to when and before which Bank Manager, the defendant no. 3 has notified his intention of revocation of the guarantee given by him.
4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that even if the defendant no. 3, though denied, has taken any steps in that regard, the same are not permissible in law. The guarantee given for the loan cannot be revoked in the manner as is being alleged in the application.
5.After careful consideration of the submissions made at bar by the learned counsel for parties, I am of the considered opinion that the application of the defendant no. 3 is not clear in its substance. For that reasons, the same is not maintainable and stands
- :: 4 :: -
dismissed. The application u/o 11 r 12 CPC of the defendant no. 3 is disposed of, accordingly. Announced in the open Court on 3.1.2008.
(RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI