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

2016 Supreme(Pat) 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, J.
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Nunumati Devi D/o Gaya Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 9 of 1991
Decided On : 09-11-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate.

Headnote:to appeal is refused.

       14. The application stands dismissed.

       n

       Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.

       (9.11.2016)

       First Appeal No. 9 of 1991

       Against the Judgment and decree dated 30.8.1990 decree sealed and signed on 14.09.1990 passed in Money Suit No. 79 of 1983/30 of 1989 by Sri H. Narayan, the then Subordinate Judge IV, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

       State Bank of India : Appellant

       Vs.

       Nunumati Devi & Ors. : Respondents

       Limitation Act, 1963–Article 19–Money suit–Bank Loan–Claim partly rejected being barred by limitation–suit was within three years from the date of last payment and cannot be said to be time barred–part of the claim wrongly held as time barred–plaintiff Bank is entitled to recovery the entire amount–appeal allowed. (Paras 9 & 10)

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1990 decree sealed and signed on 14.09.1990 passed in Money Suit No. 79 of 1983 / 30 of 1989 by Sri H. Narayan, the then Subordinate Judge IV, Biharsharif, Nalanda whereby and where under the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.12,800/- with the stipulated rate of interest pendentilite and future till realization with proportionate cost. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents.

2. The Money Suit was filed for realization of Rs.82,905.54/- from the defendants with interest pendentilite and future. The case of the plaintiff, briefly stated, is that the plaintiff Bank sponsored loan scheme to help agriculturists. Defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 being agriculturists were in need of money for purchasing a tractor with its implements for agricultural operation. They approached the plaintiff Bank jointly for loan and for that filed application dated 26.03.1976. After proper inquiry the plaintiff agreed to advance the loan by way of agricultural term loan to the limit of Rs.44,800/- only with interest at the rate of 11 % per annum subject to revised rate of interest directed by the Reserve Bank of India. The defendants no. 1 to 3 entered into the agreement and furnished guarantors who are defendants no. 4 to 6. Accordingly, agriculture term loan to the extent of Rs.44,800/- was sanctioned on 30.04.1976. The defendants executed various documents and agreed to re-pay the loan in 14 equal half yearly installments of Rs.3200/- only with interest, first of which fell due on 01.12.1976 and last installment was on 01.06.1983. The defendants no. 1 to 3 received the amount in draft dated 06.05.1976 and payment was made to the Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Patna for Tractor and Rs.10,297.96/- was given for purchase of trailor and Rs.1721.12/- for pully and Belt. All the three bank drafts for purchase of tractor, trailor, pully and belt were given on 06.05.1976 and 10.05.1976 out of which Rs.52,694.35/- which was the total cash of the aforesaid articles, Rs.7,909/- was the margin money of defendants. The defendants no. 1 to 3 benefited from the aforesaid loan and as such they were liable for the payment of the same but the defendants no. 1 to 3 defaulted jointly in re-paying dues, did not deposit the due amount of installments even on demand as agreed upon. The defendants hypothecated the tractor with trailor and its implement in favour of the plaintiff by security. Detail description is given in schedule no. 1 of the plaint. In spite of oral and written demands the defendants failed to repay the due amount along interest. On accounting and after deducting the amount already paid by the defendants, Rs. 82,905.54/- on 21.03.1983 was found due against the defendants. The details of the account is annexure-A of the plaint. As the defendants no. 4 to 6 stood as guarantors for the payment of the loan, in case of default, hence, the guarantors were jointly and severely liable for the repayment of the outstanding amount of loan with interest. By amendment of the plaint balance confirmation and letter of revival letter dated 03.04.1982 and 20.11.1982 was introduced in paragraph 13 of the plaint showing the acknowledgment of the due amount of the loan outstanding against the defendants. The amendment was brought vide order dated 05.08.1986. The cause of action for the suit arose on 06.05.1976 and 10.05.1976 on which day the aforesaid amount was disbursed to the defendants no. 1 to 3 and also on 22.06.1982 on which day the legal notice was served and on 22.03.1983 the last date of verbal demands and also on the due date of failure to deposit the due installment as agreed on 03.04.1982 and on 30.11.1982 when balance confirmation and letter of revival were executed.

3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants no. 2, 3 and defendants no. 4 to 6 separately. It has been contended that the suit is barred by


























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