Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10 Further present suit is bad for mis­joinder of parties as the loan was taken by defendant no.1 alone which is a private limited company and hence the defendant no.2 to 4 as directors of the defendant no.1 are not at all liable personally and hence could not have been made parties to the present suit.

Union Bank of India Vs.M/s Purple Line Productions (P) Ltd. & Ors. Contd.....3 of 8 11 It is further contended by the defendant no.1 that grant of working capital term loan by the plaintiff itself is illegal and irregular as the plaintiff could not have converted temporary overdraft of huge amount of Rs. 9,58,627.07 into alleged working capital term loan.

19 Defendant no.1 has claimed that plaintiff has imposed the interest twice on the same amount for the period 01.04.2009 to 02.03.11, however, a perusal of statement of account reveals that the calculation for the said period are based on Dummy ledger as per the regular practice of bank law when an account becomes NPA.

20 Defendant no.1 has submitted that the last payment was made by defendant No.1 on 18.06.2008, however, statement of account shows credit of Rs.52,757/­ dated 19.10.2009 in the said loan account. However, the said objection was disposed of and was not pressed for vide order of this court dated 27.03.12. Thus, the amount of Rs. 52,757/­ is the amount of interest reversed after the account of defendant no.1 became NPA on 16.10.09. Plaintiff has shown in the statement of account of defendant no.1 that the account became NPA on 16.10.2009. As regards showing different EMIs with different interest rates, the sanction letter dated 29.03.2008 in response to request of defendant no. 1 for conversion of temporary overdraft account into a loan account allowed the defendant no.1 to repay the loan in 12 instalments of Rs.79,886/­ plus interest commencing from April, 2008 which was the modified acceptance / sanction of the loan agreement which was signed on 28.03.2008 whereby defendant no.1 had agreed to pay back the loan amount in 24 instalments of Rs.39,943/­ with interest. The two sums when calculated total to return of same amount by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and defendant no.1 has not placed any document on record to show that it had not accepted or agreed to pay back the loan amount as shown in the loan agreement or sanction letter. Plaintiff has claimed that on 18.06.2008, the plaintiff had agreed to accept Rs.5 lacs as full and final Union Bank of India Vs.M/s Purple Line Productions (P) Ltd. & Ors. Contd.....6 of 8 payment against the said working capital term loan and defendant no.1 paid the sum of Rs. 5 lacs in full and final settlement. However, the plaintiff has denied of any such full and final settlement and defendant no.1 has also not filed any proof or document in support of its averment. Thus, this contention of defendant no.1 cannot be accepted to be correct. 21 Defendant No.1 has also submitted that there is mis­joinder of parties as the loan was taken by defendant no.1 alone and there is no personal liability of its Directors i.e. defendants No.2 to 4. It is a settled law that Directors of the company who had complete knowledge of the documents and had signed on behalf of defendant no.1 are bound to repay the loan. Otherwise also, defendants No.2 to 4 stood as guarantors to the loan agreement and are accordingly liable to repay the loan amount. 22 Defendant No.1 has submitted that future interest cannot be claimed or ordered u/o 37 CPC, however, it is a settled law that the court can allow future interest if the suit u/o 37 is allowed after hearing the arguments on application for leave to defend. 23 Defendant No.1 has submitted that temporary overdraft cannot be converted into working capital term loan which is not correct and it is pertinent to mention here that the said conversion was done at the request of defendant no.1 as is apparent from the sanction letter dated 29.03.2008. Defendant No.1 has denied the suit to have been filed without any GPA of plaintiff bank in favour of Mr. Kailash Colony. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for plaintiff accepted the same to be a typographical error in para No.1 of the plaint. The said error is typographical as is evident from the affidavit filed in support of the plaint which is of Mahavir Verma and plaintiff has filed copy of GPA as well as resolution of defendant company Sh. Mahavir has been authorized to file the present Union Bank of India Vs.M/s Purple Line Productions (P) Ltd. & Ors. Contd.....7 of 8 suit.