Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. It is averred that defendant No. 1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No. 2 is its proprietor. The defendants were having a current account bearing no. 50503 since 16.01.1996 and savings account bearing No. 22961 since 09.08.95, with the plaintiff at its Kamla Nagar branch. The defendants approached the plaintiff bank on 11.06.1996, for grant of a temporary overdraft facility for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) on usual terms of interest, for a period of three weeks.

- : 10 : -

plaintiff and against the defendants.

12. Issue No. 3 - Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree in sum of Rs. 1,38,327.44/- or any other amount against the defendants ? OPP In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff has proved on record letter dated 11.06.1996, written by defendant No. 2 as proprietor of defendant No. 1, seeking grant of temporary overdraft facility for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- Ex. PW-1/2; Cheque bearing No. 227179 dated 11.06.1996 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/-, signed by defendant No. 2 whereby the amount was withdrawn from the current account EX. PW-1/3; Copy of specimen signatures card of defendant No. 2 Mark 'A'; application form for issuance of India Card, signed by defendant No. 2 Ex. PW-1/5; debit vouchers in respect of transactions made through credit card Ex. PW-1/6 to PW-1/12; telegraphic demand legal notice Ex. PW-1/13; postal receipts Ex. PW-1/14 and PW-1/15; copy of statement of account in respect of current account, duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/16; copy of statement of account in respect of savings account, duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/17 and statement of total amount due towards defendants Ex.

- : 11 : -

PW-1/18.

13. Plaintiff has proved on record letter dated 11.06.1996, written by defendant No. 2, seeking grant of temporary overdraft facility Ex. PW-1/2 and cheque bearing No. 227179 dated 11.06.1996 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/-, signed by defendant No. 2 whereby the amount was withdrawn from the current account EX. PW-1/3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff has failed to produce the record whereby the loose leave cheque was issued to the defendants and in which signatures of defendant No. 2 were obtained in token of having received the cheque. It is submitted that in absence of that record, plaintiff has failed to prove its case. This contention of Ld. Counsel for defendants is untenable. The Court has compared the signatures of defendant No. 2 on the letter dated 11.06.1996 and also the signatures and endorsement on the backside of the cheque with his signatures on the written statement and power of attorney (vakalatnama) filed on record, in terms of Section 73 of the Evidence Act and the same have been found to be similar. In addition, the plaintiff has also filed copy of statement of account in respect of current account, duly certified under the Bankers Book Evidence

- : 14 : -
savings account. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proving its case for recovery of Rs. 34,507-09/- on account of credit card dues. This issue is accordingly decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants and plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 70,000/-, being the principal amount.
17. Issue No. 4 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if yes, what is the rate and for what period ? OPP The only evidence adduced by the plaintiff is letter written by defendant No. 2 as proprietor of defendant No. 1, seeking grant of temporary overdraft facility for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- Ex. PW-1/2; Cheque bearing No. 227179 dated 11.06.1996 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/-, signed by defendant No. 2 whereby the amount was withdrawn from the current account EX. PW-