Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

holder contending that defendant no. 2 was maintaining current account no. 603220110000314 in the name of its proprietorship concern, defendant no.1 with its at 3- Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Branch. During the course of operation of said account on the request of defendant no. 2 temporary overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- was granted by the plaintiff by clearing cheque dated 31.03.2009 drawn by him in favour of M/s. I. F. Cards. The defendant at that time had assured to pay the overdraft amount together with the interest within a short period but he failed to honour the commitment. Plaintiff therefore, got issued legal notice dated 04.06.2010 to him but defendants failed to comply with the same. As per the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India and prevailing banking practice, defendants are liable to pay interest @ 16.25% per annum with monthly rests for the period they contumaciously withheld the amount due to the plaintiff. Interest of Rs. 1,30,699/- has accrued at that rate up to 29.06.2009. The defendants are liable to pay further interest till realization of the amount. Therefore, the suit.

4. I have heard Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the record. Suit has been filed within 4 months of grant of temporary overdraft facility hence, is well within the period of limitation. Although, Contd..

original has not been produced by PW1 yet in view of non opposition, the replica of power of attorney Ex. PW 1/1 in favour of Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma has been accepted on record. The officer otherwise, seems competent as none other could have produced the original bank record and incurred expenses on litigation. He being the Senior Manager, was Principal Officer of plaintiff and therefore, competent to sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of plaintiff under Order 29 CPC. He is thus, taken to be competent to institute the suit on behalf of bank also.

5. Normally, the bank obtains a host of documents executed by the borrower at the time of grant of financial facilities including temporary overdraft but no document in this case was obtained from the defendants! Even a simple letter from the defendants requesting for temporary overdraft and undertaking to discharge the liability within a short time was not obtained. Complete circumstances, under which the cheque Ex. PW 1/3 was cleared by plaintiff seems to have not been placed before the Court. The inadvertence and deliberations on the part of bank officials in this behalf cannot be altogether ruled out. Be that as it may, it is for the higher echelons of plaintiff to put their house in order. The defendants in any case having received benefit of huge amount in the current account cannot continue with unjust enrichment, if so to say. As a law abiding citizen he should have immediately pointed it out to the bank and refunded the amount to bank holding public Contd..