P.A.KULKARNI
R. LILAVATI – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is a defendant 4's revision against the judgement and decree D/-15-7-1983 passed by the I Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in S. C. No. 137/82 decreeing the suit against all the defendants including defendant-4.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff granted credit facility to defendants - 1 to 3 in the name of their firm - defendant-1. The first transaction was the demand loan of Rs. 12,000/- and the other was cash credit hypothecation facility to the limit of Rs. 25,000/ -. Ultimately after giving deduction to the amounts paid, the suit was filed by the plaintiff Bank for Rs. 8,644-08. Defendant 4 had stood surety for both the loans.
( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 did not contest the suit. It is only defendant 4 that resisted the suit. She raised a contention that as the plaintiff creditor allowed the hypothecated properties to be lost, her liability as a surety stood discharged the second contention urged is that the acknowledgement given by defendants 1 to 3 in order to keep their debts alive does not bind her as she has not signed the acknowledgement.
( 4 ) THE trial court negatived all the contentions of defendant 4 and decreed the suit.
( 5 ) THE material po
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.