Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. According to the plaintiff, the proprietor of the plaintiff was approached by M/s.Jaishankar Associates from Mumbai through one Mr.S.Venkataraman for the purpose of converting a sole proprietary business into corporate entity and the said M/s.Jaishankar Associates had agreed to invest a sum of Rs.42.50 lakhs as their contribution for converting the sole proprietary concern into an corporate entity. The plaintiff would further claim that in order to meet the exigencies of business, the plaintiff had approached the defendant Bank and requested the defendant Bank to extend temporary overdraft facilities. The defendant Bank was also extending the said facilities, considering the overall turnover and the reputation of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, every time the defendant Bank sanctioned temporary overdraft facilities, the plaintiff had been repaying the same promptly.
12. The claim of the plaintiff that one Mr.Jaishankar of M/s.Jaishankar Associates had promised to pay Rs.42.50 lakhs as their contribution for conversion of the plaintiff into a corporate entity is also denied. The claim of the plaintiff that the defendant Bank has been extending temporary overdraft facilities generally every time when the plaintiff requested is also denied. The defendant would also deny the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant had sanctioned a temporary overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.29 lakhs to the plaintiff sometime in March 1997.
14. It is also claimed that the plaintiff had more than one account with the defendant Bank and in December 1994, the plaintiff was sanctioned general overdraft facility for Rs.2 lakhs for which he was required to execute a demand promissory note, letter of Continuing Security, letter of recording against uncleared effects for Rs.2,00,000/-, letter of undertaking not to divert funds and other documents as security for repayment of the said loan.
15. The defendant would further claim that the request for sanction of temporary overdraft for Rs.40 lakhs was not acceptable to the defendant Bank and therefore, the plaintiff came forward to reduce its claim to Rs.29 lakhs that too for a period of 11 days only. The plaintiff had also given a statement with a list of receivables and payables as on 31.03.1997 and had assured the defendant that the amount payable would not exceed the amount mentioned in the statement and hence, the defendant had sanctioned specific temporary overdraft in order to enable the plaintiff to repay the 22 persons who had been shown as creditors or persons to whom the amounts were payable by the plaintiff.

25. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had by its letter dated 17.03.1997, required a temporary overdraft facility of Rs.40 lakhs in its account No.6157. Apparently the said request was not sanctioned by the defendant Bank, therefore, the plaintiff had come up with the modified request for sanction of a Temporary overdraft of Rs.29 laksh for a period of 11 days and in the communication dated 19.03.1997, the plaintiff had shown a total sum of Rs.29 lakhs being the amounts payable by it to others and the said letter also shows a sum of Rs.57,08,824.62/- as the amounts receivable by it on or before 31.03.1997. The said receivables include a sum of Rs.42.50 lakhs from one M/s.Jaishankar Associates. According to the plaintiff, this receivable of Rs.42.50 lakhs was to have been paid by M/s.Jaishankar Associates at the instance of Mr.S.Venkataraman. Since the cheque issued to Mr.S.Venkataraman by the plaintiff was dishonoured, Mr.S.Venkataraman had withdrawn from the process and this has led to the plaintiff being unable to realize the sum of Rs.42.50 lakhs that was promised by M/s.Jaishankar Associates.