Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 736 (CAL)

Rabindra Nath Das v. State Bank of India

2008-07-24

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE

body2008
Judgment :- (1.) THESE two appeals were heard analogously as these arise out of the selfsame suit disposed of by the learned Trial Judge. (2.) THESE two appeals are at the instance of the defendant in a suit for recovery of money with declaration that the property mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint were hypothecated and assigned to the plaintiff as security and are directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd May, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division.), First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 69 of 1985 thereby not only passing a decree in favour of the respondent but also dismissing the counterclaim filed by the appellant. (3.) BEING dissatisfied, these two appeals have been preferred. The State Bank of India filed a suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 89,853. 76p. with interest from the appellant on the ground that the Bank advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant for his business after taking security of various articles including the Patent Right of the electronics items invented by the appellant. (4.) THE suit was contested by the defendant by filing the written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and according to the defendant, it was the plaintiff, who was responsible for the loss suffered by him in the business, as a result, he could not pay back the amount. By way of counterclaim, it was alleged that for the fault on the part of the Bank in not renewing the Patent Right of the appellant, he has suffered a loss of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. (5.) THE learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the defendant failed to prove that he paid back the amount of loan taken by him and thus, passed a money decree as claimed by the plaintiff. Regarding rejection of the counterclaim, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the appellant was unsuccessful in proving his counterclaim that for the fault of the plaintiff he suffered loss of any amount. (6.) BEING dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present appeals. Regarding rejection of the counterclaim, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the appellant was unsuccessful in proving his counterclaim that for the fault of the plaintiff he suffered loss of any amount. (6.) BEING dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present appeals. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that undisputedly the money advanced could not be paid back and thus, the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in passing a decree for recovery of money with further declaration sought for by the plaintiff. It is not even the assertion of the defendant that he paid back that amount. (7.) AS regards the counterclaim, it appears that the appellant hypothecated even his Patent Right of the articles invented with the Bank as security for the amount. The licence was renewable from time to time. (8.) IT appears from the record that the defendant well knew that he had not applied for extension of the licence but in spite of that, neither applied for the renewal nor did he asked the plaintiff to do the needful on his behalf. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant simply because the original patent was lying with the Bank, for that reason, he could not apply for extension of the Patent licence. Law does not require that the original patent to be produced for the purpose of filing application of extension of the licence. Even no letter was ever written to the Bank asking the Bank to renew the licence or co-operate with the defendant for extension. (9.) THEREFORE, in the fact of the present case the learned Trial Judge rightly refused to grant any decree on the counterclaim in favour of the appellant. (10) WE, thus, find no merit in these two appeals and those are, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.