Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: temporary overdraft in V.Sukumar vs Indian Bank on 6 February, 2020Matching Fragments
9.R.A.No.59 of 2012 was disposed by the DRAT by an order dated 11.11.2014. By the said order, the DRAT had remanded the case back for fresh consideration by the DRT in O.A.No.536 of 1998. The relevant portion of the said order dated 11.11.2014 of DRAT is reproduced below:-
19. It is seen that the OA has been filed against Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 to 13 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.45,66,923.83 as outstanding as on 10.2.1998 in OD account. A perusal of the sanction ticket dated 1.9.1997 issued by the 1 respondent bank with respect to the Temporary Overdraft reveals that the said temporary overdraft has been sanctioned by the 1st respondent bank on the strength of the personal guarantees dated 25.8.1997 executed by Dr. V.Sambasivam, Chairman, Mr.T. Natarajan, Director and Mr. N. Kuberan, Director of the 1st defendant company. The said letter has been marked as B7 in the OA. A reading of the letter sent by the 2nd respondent, marked as Exhibit B8 in the OA reveals that all the three people http://www.judis.nic.in11/82 viz., Dr.V. Sambasivam, Chairman, Mr.T.Natarajan, Director and Mr.N. Kuberan, Director have accepted the terms and conditions set out in the said sanction ticket which has been marked as B7. A combined reading of Exhibits B7 and B8 reveals that there are only 3 guarantors in this loan and the loan is based on the said sanction ticket dated 1.9.1997 and this when compared with the prayer made in the OA reveals that the Defendants 2, 4 and 5 alone have signed the guarantees and the OA could not have been filed against the other defendants.
6. Ld.Counsel for Appellants submitted that the whole Appeal is based on two documents i.e. Ex.B7 and B8. Ex.B7 available at Page No.276 of the typeset is a letter dated 1.9.1997 of R1 Indian Bank addressed to borrower firm which reads as below:-
"Sub: You're a/c 3026-sanction letter-temp, overdraft-reg This is with reference to your request for temporary overdraft in your above said account and the discussion you along with your Directors Shri T.Natarajan and Mr N Kuberan had with the undersigned and our Zonal Manager, Pondicherry.
95.Exhibits A 13-16 documents titled “Letter of Acknowledgment to be signed by Third-Party (other than the borrower) who has deposited the title deeds” were signed in Blank.
96.It is further submitted that though the 1st petitioner was the Managing director of the 2nd respondent company, he had not offered any security when the Temporary Overdraft Facility was given to the 2nd respondent company and therefore, it is submitted that any liability arising out of default in the Temporary Over Draft Facility cannot be fastened on the petitioners as they had neither executed the aforesaid letter of guarantee for Temporary Over Draft Facility nor given the original of the title deed. http://www.judis.nic.in52/82
121. These 3 persons were also called upon to sign and return the original copy of the sanction letter towards token of having accepted the terms and conditions/sanction and subject to the above Temporary Overdraft (TOD) was to be allowed from 03.09.1997.
122. Vide Exhibit B8 dated 01.09.1997, these three persons have also acknowledged the receipt of the above letter and assured repayment of the outstanding amount in the Temporary Over Draft Facility in the 2nd respondent’s Account No.3026.