SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Kar) 89

Karnataka High Court
Krishna Reddy H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 02-28-85
R.F.A. : 75 of 1975

Advocates:
H.C.SHIVA KUMAR, H.LAKSHMANASWAMY

Enforceability of equitable mortgage and on-demand promissory notes in loan recovery cases

Headnote:

Loan Recovery - Equitable Mortgage - On Demand Promissory Note

Fact of the Case:

The respondent-Canara Bank filed a suit against the appellant for the recovery of a loan amount with interest, secured by an equitable mortgage and promissory notes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the defendant liable for the loan amount and interest based on the terms of the equitable mortgage and the on-demand promissory notes.

Issues: Enforcement of loan repayment, validity of equitable mortgage and promissory notes

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal provisions governing equitable mortgage and promissory notes to determine the liability of the defendant.

Final Decision: The court upheld the plaintiff's claim and decreed in favor of the respondent-Canara Bank for the recovery of the loan amount and interest.

( 1 ) THIS appeal 1 as been preferred against the Decree and Judgment dated december 17, 1974, made by the additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, in o. S. No. 42/1972.

( 2 ) THE appellant was defendant against whom the respondent-Canara Bank (the "bank") instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,940-97 with current interest at 13 per cent per annum on the following averments:- on June 19, 1969, the defendant availed of a loan of Rs. 15,500/- on the security of immoveable properties with the deposit of title deeds so as to create an equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. In order to ensure prompt repayment of the loan, the defendant also executed an On Demand Promissory Note for a sum of Rs. 15. 500/- in favour of the bank. On October 14, 1969, the defendant again availed of another loan of Rs. 10. 500/- by extending the said security and on executing another Promissory Note for a sum of Rs. 10,500/ -. The defendant also hypothecated his crops and live-stock by executing necessary agreements. In all, the defendant had taken Rs. 26. 000/- as loan from the Bank. The loan was not repaid as agreed upon and on March 31, 1972, the defendant was found due in a sum of rs. 23,940-97, with interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum as per rules of business, trade usage and custom. The particulars of the amount claimed ia the plaint are :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top