Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The defendant was running a business in the name and style "Sree Venkateshwara Enterprises". It had the current account with the plaintiff-bank from the year 2007 having an Account No.10607 and was being operated for the said business purpose. On 20.11.2011, the defendant approached the plaintiff-Bank for grant of Temporary Overdraft facility in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with an undertaking to repay the same.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:31556

4. The plaintiff, having taken note of the business transactions of the defendant with the plaintiff-bank agreed to serve the temporary overdraft facility and granted the overdraft limit to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. An on demand promissory note was executed by the defendant in this regard and the defendant had agreed to pay the simple interest @ 20.50% and also agreed to pay the penal interest at 2% over and above the agreed rate in the event of default.

5. The defendant failed to repay the temporary overdraft facility as agreed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice. The defendant did not comply with the callings of notice. Therefore, suit was filed.

6. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed the written statement and admitted that she had a current account with the plaintiff's bank and also agreed the facility of temporary overdraft and the defendant denied the execution of the necessary documents in this regard.

-4-

NC: 2024:KHC:31556

7. Based on the rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues:

12. Sri.Ramesh Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that the defendant has asked for temporary overdraft in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- but the transaction of the plaintiff shows that the defendant has availed the temporary overdraft in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which is incorrect. Therefore, the very basis for the suit claim itself is incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal.