Shanthilal Jain vs The United Western Bank Ltd on 15 July, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shanthilal Jain vs The United Western Bank Ltd on 15 July, 2011

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar


~:l:-

IN THE HIC~{E~£ COURT GE' KARE'§ATAKA, BANGALORE 

99,739 THIS "ma 2?' DAY OF JULY, 201 1
PRESEN?
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEEZ v.§;.'SABs:_A§m_f. 1 V

AND

THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:CE:B._:xéANa}~L1;:§   
RFA No, 1.321 0;'--"2€i'_e5"'*'-.,_

BETWEEN:
MR.sHANTH1LALJA§N,_ _  _  - 
S/O PQoNAMcHA_NL":;1T.L.V-'      
PARTNER,    'V     
M/S vs pAPER'AG§;N.C1E':3;  ' - =
N0. "20, JUEX/Il\xIA_  "
BA&\IGALO£{'E:~56i¥3QO2jA:V' _ = '

  V  = ' MAPPELLANT

{BY SEE A VENKOABA i{§_CC}A;A'A£}RV§.. 'FVOR
B M SH§f'A_N PRASADV _&;-ASSO'C:}iATES}

    A.  ..... 

1;  "uN':zffE;%:,> "1&{I3.::§TERN BANK ;;m.,
EA§V¥;_}ALQRE: B.RziiNCH A'? N9. :1,
1 CRGSS, _C§E~§§§H1NAGAR.
_ IBANGALRE - -~'55<:> GGQ,
REP, B§*'1"§_'Ss BRANCH Z\ziAi'~h%GERé

 I2;Tf:2§;S'325:;:NQ:g¢

_  35:9.  ITS ?RQ?RE:iT1'--€§X§
A' ms. iESE§z'~: 3 J:%E§\l

 f_ ' 'V .52::. 7:9 gamma Maggy §€{}AE}§
 B3--"a£'\§Sg-Xiiﬁﬁi -- §§{% $92,



Rs.5,75,584/~ together with curren: 311:3 future  1- 

the rate of 16.5% p,a. on the saiei ameunt  «

N<:2s.1_2 and 3 jeintly and severaliy f1"'OI1"::._:jE§1€:-A€};E}§4£3 2i7f1S.1:li'€   e

the eiaie cf its realization. 

2. The material facts of the  leaeiirgg'  

appeai with reference to the. yank  ¥'5ei1:}re_.::ahe
'Lriai Court are as follows: K  & ' _ 2 x V

The plaintiff filed" seeking
ree<>Very ezf    and costs
from defend2;r;"te~*'§V.Vfe'  on 1€>~1I~1995.
It is averreei i__n'.A piaietiff is 9. jeint stock
company ineC.§*L1:4>eraied V  under the Indian

C0mpanif:sv/fgetg eii' end ineiuéed in the Second

 ;3;{\i,,,1;Ji1E:xFeS€I'VeHée§1:I'1}:{ ef India Act, 1934 having its

reéiefegfeéi  Maharashtra State and a Branch

 Ne,i1,V E  Ga:1éhmaga:~, Bangalore 5§Q €383 The

~1?;-fir$i:e,éefenﬁeaeila; represented by its pmprietrix Smt. US$13. S

 ¢;¥.e{1':-Vi  wéih &efer:éa:a*{s»2 and 3 aazaﬁeei ease Credit

 faeiiiiy sf Rs,5Q.QCiG,f~ 3:: 8-'§~1§88 which was

  _e:{f%ha:aee<:§ is 3933,': Eek}: azsei f23_:*ihe:' €Z'i§":Ei.fEC€'§§ ﬁe $259.2 

 'fee §§,I'§§'i, é:%e:=fez:s;%a:1'2 zwaiieii {he eaieé {EESEE ereiiié; §€}Ji.',§§§,:;' Eiiéd

 



secured repaynaeent thereof ané executed De%__:1ai1'§ 1-

Prornissery neie dated i3{}~lQ»19QC3 agreeing £e.'iep3.3;_Vv  

ameuzzi; as agreed with inierest at 11',_v5%-~p.,}a. -mire:"--am;-.,___ 

above the Reserve Bank of Irldiaf effie£a}7.:_"é;'t,e ei'.'if;'fge.f'e_st 

with minimum of 21.5% p.a. with  1"V'e;<3}':-=';jVV:é2:f:1& else
executed hypethecatior:  
3 guaranteed repayment of   stood ae
guarantors and  gene:'fV.&cf!;;:e§retntee. The
first defendant  e;e11eﬁnt as per the
Schedule. :}_5§'éE{:éﬁ'vV.:{0 defeficifants. Despite the
same, ame'{11;t" Lwas: " <:iefendants~1 and 2.

Defendaniﬁ n1'3;2;eige<i £Q S:f::"1e¥...'~'back the netiee sent to him

vvungier V_":=E§g;s;*tered  ____ paeknowledgrnent due. The

<:Vfef1en{;iVants --.haxre«.e£ekneW1edged the debt and their liability

Vte pez3,'AV'é;z¥:QIJiV::£."_'t,0  piair1i:iff~Bar1k by Eetiers dated 21~8w

 1.

1391, 31:3 25~5~i9§f:3 and theref<::r'e suit W35 _ V' fiiesi i'e:i'§;he éibezve said relief, .3. Befendarzfewé and 2 had served with rgetiee bui V" Sis? net apgeeae befere file {ﬁe} Cour': ami {he}; :%:ere §E;:»:eed expzsrieee. iieienﬁam §*€e.3 §§§%3éi'I'f3§ arid §i§€€i Ei?'§"§'§'{€Ef3 eieeiemezzie ave:':*i/rig aihai. Sui? iliabie ie be §ie::}.isse:§ Siléiiff ~:7:~ annum er: the said ameum from _ defer1dam N03}, 2 & 3 jeinﬂy a::«j;"i"* severaiiy from the date ef suit {ii} the dggie 0f its; realisaiien.

Being aggrieveci by the said judgment, argd ..éiee:.'ee-,. defendant has preferred this appe'J»i§.'«--.._V

6. We have heard the .£ea1*n¢ed"ee;L:nVe'e1. ap§>ea1*ing for the appellant and 1earned eeu'he.e'I::' fer the respendentwBank. V 3?. The 1e:a,;ne_'d§_ e0{i:ri3efe"~':ap:;5eariﬁgwfer the appellant submitiedﬁhat'_Aihe,apﬁ}e§1a1%§t~..'}1as at 33 executed any guarantee Bend' and Vihe averment made in the plant, the arneiipfgiv ef..e:.:':ash efedit being varied without the ieriexzsfieeiée thiyd defeﬁdzintg that third defendant has net Signed_3115}"v4:3ekf::§v'Eedgment and he has preved that the <».sig':1e;t:;L1'9e the guarantee bend exeeuéed is not a ~«.._.§§'g;1aiur'e *e"§';i;%1viré defendant; in View 9? the epimlen of the .A_e;>'e1§eAA1ff£L'er;arni::ee£ as D.W.2; that {he iriai Cs:.u:'E has :10':

appreeiateeﬁ the era} amﬁ deeesmeniary eésidenee er; ':'er::e:'€i zmﬁ evee eieizexwése, if ééaée Ceezm, cam/zess "ﬁe ﬁne e<>:1ehe:e-iieezz %;.%:.>::.§ §'e§4;"§;§§§E"§€;'*£}'{'. 312$ éeeree §"§£?iS»S€ﬁ by tee {$233 V /9'?

4".

yé ﬂ % ¢ z N9 c the eeniraet agreed {Le between ihe parﬁes and C.Z':Y},1'10i at"é%£iV. be said is be excessive.

Q. Having regard to the above sa i::i e<3i:i'{en{i'af::.,"Lhe*~ paints that arise for our det:erminecU;ef:.i_n this Vapjpeed (1) Whether the f'ir1di.r{g" -_c>'f* .._f';he . 'tfiay Qeert that the } .. "pr<)\:ed that defe:ﬁ.__dani:' "'N'c; hadj*g\',eéV:1eaf ieésh Credit of the plaintiff 3 have agreed repayment of the loan ' * eff is justified or eaﬂs for i11t_eff'eree;ee' in this appeal?

the judgmem; and decree paesed the trial Court is jusiified er ealle for Aizzterferenee in ihie appeal'?

. -..<{;;:;; axing: Order'?

3'5%E:_é?;:1ESX?v'€E' ihe eeeve peizite are feiiewe:

{E} "She firtzdiizg" ef {be 'me; Ceuyi Vie jusiiféed and eeee rxeii {tel} {er iii-§~€E$§g€§&§/)}.3{:j€s {ii} The jUdgI11€f1'£ and d€Cr€€: " a§az;i'r.:{i::.;{"'--T V' i:1t€~:resi;ai 1€i3.5€3"5:s.<}'3;'€:~..4€L_1fF€I1VJL'.éiﬁC¥ intérest on a suin liable to b€V'i:ia§§fie<§'-big? :$du§i:ig~.£V.b§ of imierést -9.3." ether resp€§{$~, ﬁassed by __ the tr:ai.

(1:2) ' pé: f1;:x:%.3; .. V

10. for the appellant has P.Ws.1 and 2 and the {:01/1t€1)1Vt£S~:?'0"j:""E}V(:34§M.iéfiid also the evidence of D.Ws(1 and 2 and':-hVé <:oIiterits"0§ E3xs.D#1 :0 D--5.

; ' 11, VV€: Ahavé given Careful Consideration to the "V"CQfi'kCF3.1'1{§'ﬁC>1"1§A.{}'i' leaffiéﬂ counsel appearing for the parties A and s€;r.i§1':§riié{:--<i ihe material on 1"€CC%I'ﬁ. '.Ef7;€t material an ?€€?{)I'd wesuid Cfsariy Show thai t}1~::..fac:{ihat first defsndant had avaikd Cash creﬁii facility ";§ViV""i{':§5§Jf)QG/- in the year 1988 which was $:1ha::C€§ 'E9 " " Eakh amé subsetquﬁtniiy eszzhancsd is R332 iakhs in {E26 }"€2if 299:3? if} resgpacté (:25 w;%:i::§*1 E36 €X§{f5,1'§€§ 53:: és:::12::1§ '\:;2'~'IT:'> >u.,.v ~: I3:~ per Ex.P-}:3. Nothing has been elieiteé in his ereeSi"*.e exanaination apart from suggesting that defendani Ne_..3.:i:_ats'_' ~ "

not at aii executed the guarantee as per EXBP»3{a} is not his signature but ii is N0s.1 and 2 with {he eoilusien of Qfficer:4s".__0§'T'.ti1e 2 He has aiso stated that defendant haii 'eQh'aef,;:te'€i,V"Vfe'fS enhancement befere saxletieaing aad"'he* has the said letter. It is false N03 never steed as guavraatar aﬁa' gaklggest thai no ie-gal NQ:'f'3¥V4and that suit has been f}E--e<i. in Collusion with defendant Nos'; 1 -» " é 4' 14; Thambekar was werking {Marx-agez' {§:"'a~:e' p1aintiff--~Bank from 1}'~12~}994 ﬁe' has predueeei EXP45 - power cf " xa:i;er'r:eayVexegmiieeifin favour sf PW. E, Hewever. he hae neé .. .e;:s:";1«:en Eaabcéuf; the transaeteien. SW3 ~»~ Shanéhiiai ~ aeefendam NCL3 iappelﬁazzi _Eie:¢e--;.n} in hie e§:ar1é§:3aEie:2v§n~e§:ief has :*ei:e:*a:e§ iihai he "E2215 220%; siggjneii guara,aLee aegreenxeni 113:' £i{7}i§1{}'§§}€{§§fiE€§E'£, ~:14:--

and that a false case has been feisted on E'1i:11i__ "if.'._IVe (rd, .-

03' marked "the deeumenis 'Exs.D-1 is depesed that he has obtained epinion frdiz: {11_e hanﬁiiyﬁiingv expert. I1: is elicited in his cross exaﬁ{i:2ai,ioe1 is Shanthilai Jain, son sf Vehe documents as 'Shanthiial' he F;f1'LeV"_;.3.Iv§éLi;j1iiff«Ban}< from 1981 to 198S.Ve:1e;:§i:-he I~I0we\/«:1:

from 1989 he has account and hence it is Q. "ﬁne objection of any nature in ':fes}3:€:c*: "'ac;eeur1t; he had with the plair1tiff~BankV"'.s.__' an account in State 'Bank of he 's.£:eppec,i to operate the current aeeeunt 'he .,\§'iif_1 '£iY;'tEJ$5§'8,if1'éiff. He does not know defendant N0.1 but'lie"k;:0€&§s'V"e.efeﬁ%'déLnt N92. He was rurming partnership Vas:c0un{"*bu::éﬁ.1es's {£11 1992 and thereafter they have closed .H_fé;E:at Afilffil ashe was running the business under' {he name e.:1ﬁ"'e_s'ig:e ef 'a£2S.Paper Agency. Defendant '$59.22 was fuzmizlg 3 business nexi to his 'euiftdirzg wherein he was ":::V:2r:£:':§ his page; business? He knevss éefenﬁast N02 {rem ihe year E981»-82$ Erie aise k1§§'WS :;i:a*; deiendaiai NCRZ '$J£:'i:?« Begging bsek EiC{1C5'L,Ef1'i, WEEE1 ihe ;3i21i::éiff~§3an%;, There was normed relatienship with defendam: 330.2 there was me quarrei or nzisunderstanding 9' anc} defendam; N32. He has denied 3 suggesi:0n.ﬁ'f;at 3Q~10~1990 himseif . defendant No.1 appreaczhed the plaintiﬂibank for e:1_hance~ji'ea¢sh erekﬁiiet; loan of Rs.50,G{}C¥/~ to RS2 lakhs . He'I;az1§é;,}};és the plaintiff has saneti0ne¥:i.,_«Rs.f2 '}aieﬁ$Vibiigé hieiéeiféand defendant No.2 acting as 'get signed general form of €z3?u:E1F51;%1*L:€¥€ 1990 and the signature beicng to him.

Similarly, net belong :9 him.

He knows é1_bci1;{ O.A.Ne.1248/IQQS against deferi€ia:91'E.V himself aiong with other eefendavrij. ubefcre Qebg Reeevergg 'ﬁibunal and in that AappTe::ea::e;3_V'::E§e, ize_ haé pkeadeci that signatures found in ihe"eziieg_.dee'ei{me:':§is'vevere ferfged 9 After seeing {he eréer Sheen :*£ppE§.ea£::eCr; and vakalathe {he same are niarkeﬁ in ' .i"*i§$ "::r:>§§ exaezinatieiz as EX$.P~18 anﬁ 127. it is 21183 true i*,§.1e2:{11A.Ve:*ie:'«i::aE eczmpiairai fiieqi ageing': {he §1a§::£;ii1fE':as been jjéieemifesed zmiti ihe giaizéiiff preierreé 3'€"%?'i§Si,{}i'} befeee ihe "'is'eeeie::$ {:{3L§f"§,, Re hag £:i{f:'fz§€':i"§ :5: $::g§ges§;§(:n ihaéi he has signeé the: documents referréd to and the gLiE1I'fcf;.1"'1"?:€i(§ ".:"'». agreénlent ané his is ejepesing faisély to avoid his §iab'§§_;i2ty..:'T..: '

18. D.W.2 is a hanciwriting f3§<.L'}:3€3I'i ,.9:fi{i =,$.h§ spoken abeut conlparisan of EXs.P4f3..,_4~,5 xéaksiiath F517, Written statement and memo of ir1sﬁ'1V1'u«r.%:':i01fV1s, giﬁfen her report as per E3:><:.D~12.V hés %1u1eV Vhas carefully examined and c0::1pa:%_e<i and disputed Signatuféié was of the opinion that V. riﬁt made by the person She has stated that d.c3:aiEe<;3"r§%a:<;($vn£=, '~I%e~p0rt at E:>s:.D~12. She was practicing as haﬁciwritihng £:x1:}'ért. It is elicited in heir crass 'ﬂ {5j3>.i"c'3.IT1'iI"{;€'ct€}:G1E)X-.,,ﬂ'1?)§ ship; h"é;'{S got the procef to Show that shs wé;:s__ §>;'a'éi:§:;Vin_g~v éghandwriting expert and She has not ' v'».pr0duc:{§ a:v1y{'€:i'€§V;:'L:::n:?::1ts to thaw; effect in the prssent Case.

~ _f;-ﬁ_'0'..:h€ quesﬁen that signature pertian in tbs vakalath of .:hi%V'_é€:f»zu:i:dani iappeﬁant }f'1€1"€i§:) is {armed Gui, the 8.ﬁSW'€I"

by her was {hat the paper was termed Gui on {ha "'A.,. §'::>3%%.;.i@§: sf {E16 digpmeé ségmitzzrs. Shé has :30: 363:: the erigmai 5? §§:»::es.F~E§ Eifid 1?. SE16 E215 aéesiriiiaxié :2; guggegétisrg ﬁ"'iE%.E, ;2n:§§:~§;3uir:3d ~$§§f£E3§;_Ti§f{'CS in iézs E}??? '§f'{}{.3€€€§§Ii§%;S was N05,}? 2 3: 3 have account in the piaintiff»~Bank 3' enhancement ef Cash eredii cf Rs.E"){),<3O;{}§/5 am':

deeuments in the presence of P.W.} he"£*1as"i:;1enetli§"iee:'iV A' the signature ef guarantee a;gjreement'.e_ as a.i'Sk:>f_' vibe acknowledgement. It is also dear f::aie1;ia1 33n reeerd that the appeﬁant 5tes'e:ibi 1;zegVAvvhis name differently en differem:.. he has described himself signed as Shanthilai Jair; agreement. He has admitted befere the Debt Recovery "1;;h'at. he has signed as Shanthﬂal... h"1 'v'i_ew...ef fact that the evidence ef 1-V3;1eaf:d37x?1'ie'€i;*1g.A'expert is «fid'ii'Vheipfu£ to the present case to eef;t;e%:e£ ﬂ:a€'sig:daft;i;je en the deeumente - guarantee bond ' letter E}:.P~5 has been denied apart frem own eerving si;at,ea1e::I; {here :35 as maieriai shew that the said Signature baa been fergjed ﬁa;e éefendanial and 2 in eeliusion with the pIair1tiff~ ?he iiriaé Cam': after appreeiaiing the atzezze Said erai aaé éeeazeeni,ar_s; eviiﬁeaee, hag Eighéiy ﬁeld Ehai; géiainéiff eae ggeseved ﬂea? aepeiéaai heyeizz has exeeai/ea gaaeaniee s V \ M \\ » ~: l9:~ bond which eoniains his signature and appeliani has faiied "*.s ta prove that sigrzatures feund in Exs.P-§3_4 8: 5 are 11:,e.*:.e- V signatures. On re~appreeiating the entire record, we hold that finding of the iria1:: C:Aeii 1':e fphgi has proved that appeﬂant; herein has E0ef1_-v_:ee'v<i\r'a1'V letter is justified and does not Cali"-«fs':=eban3;* i"p.:e1"§efenaCexif: ' this appeal.

18. However, in so far awarded towards currens '71"a:.....15e.50/Q pa. is concerned, haVri:1g'defendants~1 and 2 have beef; regard to the fact {hat alnouzfii 'i1;Hp0sing interesi at 21.5% p.aé at c»A;:¢.1,;Va:'ter1ay' eiiadfiieeree has been passed for ﬂRs"av5,?E3if§64;;'V.~ as cia ij5n"e'<I'in the suit before the trial Court arid T. fegard to the discretion thai; can be Ceur: regarding Current and future ',,,_._.§§§'iteres:,' of mteresi at 16.5% peas in the above anﬁ Circumstances of {he ease is excessive and is léeblée :0 be :eei:;=::ed is 9% pg/a. and aestessizlgijg, {,'{?: ihaé. e:~:é1eni,., f/he juzigmem ggasseé E33: {he ériai Cam':

aws:'{§f£::g %:":'ée:*esi aé 2§.§"%'{2 }§,§§,,. eéesvezigrés ::::m*e:";§ ems §'z.2t:::*e

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Shanthilal Jain vs The United Western Bank Ltd on 15 July, 2011

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.Manohar