Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. As per averments made in the plaint, there is an express and implied contract between the parties as defined in Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act that as and when any of the customers or consumer like the defendant is allowed a temporary financial facility in any form, at any point of time, the customer/client/consumer is under an obligation to repay the same alongwith interest applicable thereon for the said temporary Overdraft Limit/Financial Facility applicable to the account, as per the norms and rules & regulations of the plaintiff bank.

5. As per averments made in the plaint the conduct of the defendant as clearly reflected in the Statement of A/c of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank, established beyond doubt that the aforesaid temporary Overdraft Limit of Rs. 4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four Lac Only) availed by the defendant from the plaintiff bank was with dishonest and malafide intentions and as thereafter, nothing has been paid by the defendant since then.

6. As per averments made in the plaint since the financial facility 18.04.2011 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar Bhatia obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff bank is without any security, the same is in the form of a purely temporary overdraft limit and the present rate of interest @ 17% per annum with monthly rests is applicable to the same which the defendant is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff bank.

7. As per averments made in the plaint the requests of the plaintiff to the defendant to repay the aforesaid amount of temporary overdraft facility went in vain. Thereafter, under the compelling circumstances, the plaintiff bank also served a legal notice dated 19.07.2010 on the defendant through Regd. A.D. post through their counsel Shri Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate demanding the outstanding amount of the plaintiff bank as specified in the said notice but in vain.