Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: temporary overdraft in Bank Of Baroda vs Canary Travel Private Limited on 1 July, 2010Matching Fragments
Plaintiff is a body corporate constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980; that defendant No. 1 is in the business of travel and defendant No. 2 & 3 are the directors of the defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 2 & 3 opened a Current Account No. 1490 with the plaintiff bank on behalf of and in the name of the defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 2 & 3 applied for Temporary Overdraft (TOD) from plaintiff bank on 18.04.2001; that the defendant No. 2 & 3 were throughout irregular in making the deposits against the amount of Temporary Overdraft and stopped depositing any amount in their Current Account maintained with plaintiff bank after 25.05.2001; that the plaintiff bank sent the defendants repeated reminders through letter dated 18.06.2002 requesting them to deposit the outstanding balance of Rs.5,40,768/ as on 30.03.2002; that a statement of account of the defendant pertaining to the said temporary overdraft certified under Banker's Books of Evidence Act shows that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,40,768/ as on 30.03.2002; that the defendants through their letter dated 11.07.2002 admitted their liability towards plaintiff bank; that vide letter dated 17.07.2002, the plaintiff bank again requested the defendant to deposit the temporary overdraft amount of Rs.5,40,768/; that a legal notice dated 09.03.2004 was sent to the defendants to settle the outstanding balance within 7 days, but till date neither defendants replied the said legal notice nor deposited any payment towards settling the Temporary Overdraft amount.
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD The onus of proving this issue was on the defendants. Defendants took up an objection that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time as it had been filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of cause of action.
Perusal of the record shows that the suit was filed on 17.04.2004, the temporary overdraft facility was given to the defendants by the plaintiff bank on 18.04.2001 and the defendants finally stopped making payment after 25.05.2001.
The plaintiff in para 9 of the plaint stated that the defendants admitted their liability towards the plaintiff bank for an outstanding balance of Rs.5,40,768/ on 11.7.2002 and the plaintiff bank sent a letter dated 17.7.2002 calling upon the defendants to deposit temporary overdraft amount at the earliest.
The plaintiff proved Ex. PW1/5 a letter written on behalf of the defendants and signed by Ms. Sanchana Jasrasaria, one of the directors. The defendants admitted their liability on 11.7.2002 and the period of limitation would be computed from this date as per the law of limitation. The plaintiff bank has filed the suit within the period of limitation and the issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion, that the suit in hand has been signed, verified and filed by a constituted attorney of the plaintiff bank. Even otherwise, defendant has not led any evidence to the contrary. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.7,44,244/ as claimed? OPP The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. Shri G. K. Chawla, Senior Manager examined by the bank as PW1, deposed that the defendant opened a Current Account with the plaintiff bank in the name of the defendant No. 1 i.e. M/s. Canary Travel Pvt. Limited and defendant No. 2 & 3 had signed the account opening form, The account opening form has been proved as Ex. PW1/1. PW1 further deposed that on 20.07.2000, defendant No. 2 & 3 signed a declaration, Ex. PW1/2 and furnished the copies of Memorandum of Association of Defendant No. 1 proved Ex. PW1/3. PW1 deposed that the documents of account opening were executed in his presence and defendants furnished Form32 under the Companies Act Ex. PW1/4. This witness deposed that Shri V. K. Kataria, who was working as Branch Manager at the relevant time granted the temporary overdraft facility to defendants on their oral request in accordance with the formal banking practice. PW1 further deposed that defendants were irregular in making payments and were reminded from time to time to regularize the account and finally in a letter dated 11.07.2002 Ex. PW1/5, signed by Ms. Sanchana Jasrasaria one of the Directors of the company admitted their liability to pay the outstanding amount. This witness was put to cross examine, but the defendants failed to elicit anything fruitful in their favour.