Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13) This leads us to deal with the letter dated 1.4.2015 (document in dispute in the present petition) purportedly issued by the petitioners. It is the consistant stand of the respondent bank that the said letter dated 1.4.2005 was handed over to it by respondent No.2 while creating equitable mortgage for securing financial assistance for and in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is to be noted here that inter office letter dated 19.4.2005 issued by the Dy. General Manager of the respondent bank clearly mentions that the lessees have no interest in the loan sanctioned to M/s. Zoom Developers Private Limited-respondent No.3 and they should give consent to vacate the premises as and when called upon by the bank. That, the undertaking should be confirmed by the bank and it should be notarized. It thus makes clear that on 19.4.2005 the alleged letter dated 1.4.2005 was not in existence and was not submitted by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the bank while processing the loan. It therefore clearly appears that the said letter dated 1.4.2005 came on record/existence after 19.4.2005. It further appears to us that the 31 /38 WP-5252-2015 respondent bank after accepting the documents from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and after receipt of the said purported letter dated 1.4.2005 has bona-fide granted the financial credit facility for and in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.