JUDGMENT - H.D. PATEL, J.:---The aforesaid two appeals arise from a common judgment and, therefore, they are heard and disposed of together.

2. Two Civil Suits were filed by the appellant Bank against the same set of respondents. They were registered as Special Civil Suit No. 167/79 and 168/79 . The first respondent in either of the two suits is a partnership firm dealing in the business of manufacturing aromatics and allied chemical having its factory at Hingna Road, Nagpur. The respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the partners of the firm. The respondent No. 2 is the Managing Partner of the firm.

3. The first respondent approached the appellant Bank for financial assistance upto a limit of one lakh for erection of the factory and for purchase and installation of machinery. After due scrutiny and verification of the requirements of the first respondent, sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 30,000/- against the equitable mortgage of the plot and building and Rs. 70,000/- against the hypothecation of machinery on 10-8-1974. The first respondent and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 executed a demand promissory note agreeing to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with interest at 4 per cent over and above the Reserve Bank rate with minimum of 11% per annum with monthly rests. An agreement of hypothecation also came to be executed. In consideration of the facilities granted, one Jaywant Ramchandra Deshpande, the father of respondent No. 2, executed a letter of guarantee in favour of the Bank. The said guarantor expired prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind respondent No. 2 and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 as legal heirs, in possession of the property left by the deceased. These respondents are equally liable for the amount claimed in the suit.

4. The first respondent again approached the bank for working capital facility upto the limit of Rs. 25,000/-. The plaintiff after due scrutiny of the requirements sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondents/partners executed a demand promissory note on 26-9-1975 agreeing to pay the amount jointly and severally with interest at 4% over the Reserve Bank rate with minimum of 13½ % per annum with quarterly rests. Again an agreement for hypthecation of goods in favour of the plaintiff Bank was also executed.

5. The respondents 1 to 6 and the deceased guarantor Shri J.R. Deshpande acknowledge their indebtedness in the sum of Rs. 93,544.71 in term loan on 11-8-1977 and in the sum of Rs. 30,018.16 in cash credit account on 31st August, 1977. Since the amounts were not paid, the plaintiff Bank claimed Rs. 1,23,329.51 with interest at the contractual rate amounting to Rs. 28,630.88, the total claim being Rs. 1,51,960.39 in Civil Suit No. 167/79.

6. As stated above, the appellant Bank had after due scrutiny and verification sanctioned a term loan limit of Rs. 30,000/- against equitable mortgage of the plot and building. For this amount the respondents 1 to 6 executed a demand promissory note agreeing to pay the same with interest at 4% over the Reserve Bank Rate, minimum being 11% per annum with monthly rests. This amount the defendants agreed to pay in 60 equal instalments of Rs. 525/- each. As usual, the guarantor was late Shri J.R. Deshpande, whose legal heirs were as stated above respondents Nos. 2 and 7 to 10. They are jointly and severally liable for repayment of the amount. The appellant Bank claimed Rs. 55,850.60 including interest at the contractual rate. In default, the plaintiff Bank claimed sale of the property mortgaged by public auction and amount realised be applied towards the satisfaction of the appellant's claim. This was the claim filed in Civil Suit No. 168/79.

7. The respondents contested the claim on various grounds. In either of the suit filed by the plaintiff the respondent contended that the interest charged by the plaintiff Bank as per contractual rate is excessive and hit by section 3 as amended by C.P. Amendment Act No. 11 of 1934 which is still operative in Vidarbha area

Click Here to Read the rest of this document