Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: temporary overdraft in Branch Office At: vs M/S Virender Book Binding on 10 May, 2014Matching Fragments
1. Plaintiff, a nationalized bank, has filed this suit for recovery through Sh. Arvind Sharma, Senior Manager stating that defendant no. 1 is a proprietorship concern of defendant no. 2 and has been maintaining a current account no. 603220110000162 with plaintiff. During the course of its operation, the plaintiff had granted temporary overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs in the said current account on oral request of defendant no. 2 by clearing a cheque no. 000012 dated 20.04.2009 issued by her in the name of M/s Sagat Enterprises. At the time of availing the financial facility, defendant no. 2 had assured to pay the over draft amount together with interest accrued thereon at prevailing rate, within a short period. The defendants however failed and neglected to clear the outstanding amount leading the plaintiff to send legal notice dated 04.06.2010 which remained in complied. It is stated that the defendants are liable to pay interest @ 16.25% per annum on the overdue amount as per RBI guidelines. A sum of Rs. 99.497/ towards interest has accrued against the defendant therefore the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,99,497/ with pendentlite and future interest @ 16.25% per annum with monthly rests, has been filed.
3. Whether the defendant has been granted temporary Overdraft Facility by the plaintiff by clearing cheque favouring M/s Sagat Enterprises? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
5. Relief.
10. Issue No. 3: 10 (a) Plaintiff has filed an extract of the statement of account of defendant no. 1, Ex. PW 1/10. Although it reflects that the defendants had availed short period Overdarft from plaintiff in February/March, 2009 yet there is nothing to presume that said facility also had been extended on verbal request of DW 1 / DW2. The details of accounts of other concerns including the three concerns of DW 2 which may have availed such financial facility in the range of Rs. 56 lacs just on verbal requests, have not been furnished. Neither the guidelines issued by the plaintiff bank nor of the Reserve Bank of India for such transactions have been produced. The contention that defendant no. 2 had made a personal request in this behalf by coming over to the bank branch has also fallen flat. The statement of Accounts Ex. PW1/10 does not show that the defendants were carrying business of such a volume as to generate confidence in the plaintiff that they will honour any commitment of replenishing the credit facility within a short period. 10 (b) Since the banks have printed formats of security documents for all kinds of facilities extended to the customers and keep staff for explaining and maintaining the same, there was really no need for the plaintiff to concede to the alleged verbal request of defendants for temporary overdraft. The plea has apparently been taken to save the bank official who had exceeded his jurisdiction probably on motivation. The issue thus is decided in negative.