Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: temporary overdraft in Bank Of India vs M/S. Unimax Builders & Developers (P) ... on 2 September, 2013Matching Fragments
3 It is the case of the plaintiff that Defendant is a private limited company engaged in the business activity as "Builders & Developers" and maintained a current account no. 60362010000180 in its name with the plaintiff. Defendant vide request letter dated 24.09.2009, requested the plaintiff for grant of Temporary Overdraft of Rs. 7,50,000/ for 10 days only for the purpose of meeting its certain urgent business requirements and also submitted to the plaintiff another letter dated 24.09.2009 to grant the said overdraft limit of Rs. 7,50,000/ against cheque no. 790192 dated 30.09.2009 for a period of 10 days only to which defendant executed Demand Promissory note, Bearer Letter and Letter of Declarations and undertakings all dated 24.09.2009 in favour of the plaintiff.
16 Defendant has not denied the grant of Temporary overdraft of Rs. 7,50,000/ in month of September 2009 but has submitted that there are certain payments made by him which are not reflected in the statement of account. Defendant however has not pointed any payment which has been made by him and is not reflected in statement of accounts. During the course of arguments, defendant was specifically asked if there is any payment which he has made but is not reflected in statement of account to which he answered in negative. Thus the said objection/ submission of the defendant is unsustainable. 17 Defendant has raised an objection that in the promissory note it is written with pen that 5.25% over BPLRMIN 17.25 which suggest that Bank Prime Lending Rate of Bank of India is 12% p.a. Compounded at monthly rests. However, plaintiff has not filed any document to prove that Bank Prime Lending Rate of Bank of India is 12% p.a. Compounded at monthly rests during 20092010. The defendant has not denied the execution of the promissory note dated 24.09.2009 where it is specifically promised by the defendant that it promises to pay the plaintiff bank the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/ together with interest on such sum from the date of promissory note @ 5.25% over BPLR MIN 17.25. In the agreement dated 24.09.2009 executed by the defendant, there is specific mention of endorsement of this demand promissory note for Rs. 7,50,000/ dated 24.09.2009 in clause 3 of the agreement. Under Clause 6 of the said agreement dated 24.09.2009, defendant specifically agreed that the interest payable by him shall be calculated at the rate of interest mentioned in the said demand promissory note and/or mentioned in the loan agreement / s or at such other rates as the bank may specify generally from time to time on the notice board of the branch concerned or in the newspaper for the general information of its customers and no specific notice in the change of interest shall be required to be given to the plaintiff. In view of this undertaking given by the defendant, the objection raised by the defendant is frivolous and does not raise any triable issue.
18 Defendant has also submitted that the rate of interest in the promissory note was filled by the officials of plaintiff later on and it is not the same as agreed by him. He has further stated that bare perusal of promissory note will prove that his signatures were obtained on blank promissory note which was filled later on by the officials of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a body corporate in the business of banking and all its documents are always printed and are filled at a later stage for the purpose for which the documents are printed. The promissory note is dated 24.09.2009. Signatures of the defendant are not disputed. Defendant has also not denied the availing of temporary overdraft facility by him. With respect to the plaintiff bank filling up the rate of interest on its own at a later date, it is pertinent to note that about four years have passed but plaintiff has filed no police complaint or any other complaint to higher officials of the bank with respect to being coerced by the officials of the plaintiff bank to sign on the blank forms. Thus, the contention of the defendant is an afterthought to evade paying its liability. The defendant is raising frivolous and baseless submissions to evade his liability to pay the amount claimed through the present suit.