Canara Bank vs Vara Trading Co. And Ors. on 19 October, 2005
In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel
for defendants relied upon Canara Bank v/s Vara Trading Co.
& Ors. I (2007) BC 541 (DB).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. And Anr vs M/S. Agarwal Steel on 20 October, 2009
(h)It is admitted that the cash credit limit was enhanced when
proprietor of defendant no. 1 was doing his business in the
SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 16 of 24
name of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave. It is also admitted that
subsequently defendant no. 1 changed the name of his firm
i.e. M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Ghunghat The Design
House. So under these circumstances defendants were
certainly required to execute fresh documents in favour of
plaintiff to discharge its liability. PW1 deposed that
defendants executed these documents i.e. Ex. PW1/14, Ex.
PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16 on 16.07.2005. The documents bear
the date of execution as 16.07.2005. Defendants claimed
that they were made to sign the blank documents in May
2004 and the said documents were filled later on by plaintiff's
official. Admittedly, it is not the case of defendants that their
signatures were obtained by force or fraud. Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. vs. Aggarwal
Steel VIII (2009) SLT 15 held that
"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there
is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud,
that he has read the document properly and understood
it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon,
otherwise no signatures on document can ever be
accepted."
Corporation Bank vs Sushil Enterprises And Ors. on 16 May, 2003
(i) Further Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Corporation Bank vs.
Sushil Enterprises 2004(1) I.S.J (Banking) 160 held that
SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 17 of 24
"These issues are being taken together as they are inter
linked and interdependent. The pleas set up by
defendant are common pleas. Nobody is expected to
sign the documents without reading it or when it is blank
and if he does so he does at his own risk and the very
fact that the plaintiff Bank has disbursed the loan amount
and defendants had availed it also shows that the
documents were valid and duly executed. The admission
of the signatures of the defendant no. 1 upon the
documents in question raises a presumption that the
documents were duly filled in when these were signed.
Had the defendants not availed the loan amount and had
the payment of the machinery purchased by defendant
no. 1 not been made by the plaintiff, the aforesaid plea of
signing the documents when theses were blank might
have cut ice, not otherwise. The lining of both these
issues are therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The State Bank Of India Act, 1955
The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
N.Y. Thajudeen, Nambipunnilath House vs Proprietor, K.J. Marbles, ... on 30 July, 2010
(c)The facts which are admitted and not disputed are:
SUIT NO. 625/14 State Bank of India M/s Ghunghat The Design House 13 of 24
I. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 earlier used to run his
business in the name of M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave,
II. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 obtained cash credit limit
of Rs. 2.00 lacs being proprietor of M/s Ellora The
Fashion Cave from plaintiff on 25.06.2003,
III. On request of proprietor of defendant no. 1, plaintiff
enhanced the cash credit facility of Rs. 2.00 lacs to
Rs. 2.50 lacs on 18.05.2004,
IV. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 changed the name of his
firm M/s Ellora The Fashion Cave to M/s Gunghat The
Design House,
V. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 also obtained term loan
facility of Rs. 40,000/ from plaintiff for revival of his
unit,
VI. Proprietor of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2
admitted their signatures at respective places of loan
documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/18.
1