Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

5. It is the claim of the plaintiff that on 17.03.1997, the plaintiff had requested a temporary overdraft facility for Rs.40 lakhs and the same was sanctioned by the defendant. According to the plaintiff, this amount of Rs.40 lakhs was sought for expecting the ensuing investment of Rs.42.50 laksh by M/s.Jaishankar Associates. Since the capital gains exemption was available only upto 31.03.1997 there was a sense of urgency in the entire plan. According to the plaintiff, even in the letter dated 17.03.1997 by which a request was made by the plaintiff to the defendant Bank for sanctioning of temporary overdraft facilities, it was pointed out by the plaintiff about the impending contribution to be made by M/s.Jaishankar Associates to the plaintiff with a view to convert the plaintiff into a corporate entity.

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.

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.