Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: temporary overdraft facility in Uco Bank vs Harsh Ved Vyas on 26 August, 2016Matching Fragments
1. Vide this Judgment I shall dispose of the present complaint U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short NI Act) filed by complainant UCO Bank through its Chief Manager Sh. Y.K. Sharma against accused Sh. Harsh Ved Vyas. The genesis of litigation in the present case is, that complainant is a Nationalized bank and accused Harsh Ved Vyas being proprietor of M/s Indigo Travels & Tours maintained current account bearing no. 29647 with the complainant bank. As alleged, during the year 2007-2008 complainant bank sanctioned a temporary overdraft facility to the accused for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- at the interest of 17.50% per annum, on his current account bearing number 29647. Against repayment for the overdraft facility, accused issued a cheque bearing no. 204780 dated 12.03.2009 for Rs.15,08,420.79 drawn on UCO Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi branch in favor of the complainant. The said cheque on presentation was dishonored twice vide return memo dated 12.03.2009 & 10.06.2009 respectively with the endorsement, " Funds Insufficient ". Thereafter complainant sent legal demand notice dated 29.06.2013, however, despite service of legal demand notice, accused did not make any payment in discharge of his liability.
21. Having overcome the above objection of the learned defence counsel, let us now turn to the evidence adduced by CW-4, in support of the complainant's case. Sh. C.S. Kashiv, who was then the Branch Manager at UCO Bank, Krishna Nagar branch, was examined as CW-4. He, in his evidence by way of affidavit, stated that on verbal request of the accused, who is the proprietor of M/s Indigo Travels & Tours, a temporary overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- at the interest of 17.5 % per annum was sanctioned by him on behalf of the complainant bank. As per CC No. 56745/16 (old No. 57/16) 12 /17 CW-4, the facility was sanctioned to the accused on his current account no. 29647 on 30.06.2007 and a sanction letter under his signatures was given to the accused by hand. The copy of the sanction letter is Ex. CW3/4. CW-4 further in his evidence by way of affidavit, deposed that after the sanction of temporary overdraft facility to the said current account of the accused, accused start availing the facility by issuing various cheques. As per CW-4 the cheques were honoured by the complainant bank against temporary overdraft facility to the current account of the accused. During his cross-examination CW-4 denied suggestions against sanctioning of temporary overdraft facility to the accused. Nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the version of the witness who has been consistent in his deposition before the court.