Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 707 (JHR)

Md. Fakruddin @ Fakuruddin Wasid v. Dena Bank

2009-05-07

M.Y.EQBAL

body2009
JUDGMENT M.Y.Eqbal,J. This appeal by the appellant-borrower is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th October, 2005 passed by Subordinate Judge-Vth, Jamshedpur in Money Suit No.70/95, whereby the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent-Bank in 1995 for recovery of Rs.2.00 lacs has been decreed. 2. The facts of the case are not in much dispute. 3. In the year 1988 the defendant-appellant approached the Bank for grant of term loan of Rs.1,10,000/-and cash credit facility of Rs.35,000/-for purchasing machinery, establishing printing press and towards working capital for running the said business. The appellant no.2 agreed to become guarantor for the aforesaid facilities given to the appellant no.1. The respondent-Bank agreed to provide the said facilities and allowed the term loan and also the cash credit facilities. The appellant executed demand promissory notes on 8.10.88 and other documents in order to secure repayment of the said amount. The case of the plaintiff-Bank is that on 1.10.92 the appellants acknowledged their liabilities and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,988.63 against term loan of Rs.58,646.22 in cash credit accounts. But in spite of demand made by the Bank, the appellant did not liquidate the dues and ultimately the respondent bank filed the aforementioned suit. 4. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that in 2005, when the suit was pending before the court below, the respondent-Bank agreed for a settlement on the basis of one time payment of Rs.1,05,000/-but the proposal of the Bank was turned down by the defendant-appellant. In course of argument learned counsel appearing for the parties have not disputed the fact that at the fag end of the hearing of the suit the aforesaid proposal was made by the Bank and which has not been accepted by the respondent. The trial court after considering all the documentary evidences including the promissory note and nature of guarantee both for the term loan and cash credit facility have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-Bank is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,88,684.85 paise. 5. The trial court after considering all the documentary evidences including the promissory note and nature of guarantee both for the term loan and cash credit facility have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-Bank is entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,88,684.85 paise. 5. This Court at the time of haring of the appeal directed the counsel for the Bank to seek instruction as to whether the respondent Bank is still ready to settle the dispute on payment of Rs.1,05,000/-, on instruction learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the proposal was given in 2005 and more than five years have passed because of the refusal of the defendant-appellants to pay the aforesaid amount in 2005. Hence that amount must carry interest till the date of realization. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for Bank is very fair and reasonable. 6. Considering the defence taken by the defendant-appellants in the suit that the appellant no.1 is disabled person and he could not run the business from January,89 to 1990 and the industry became seek and employees were on strike, I am of the view that the appellant should accept the proposal for payment of Rs.1,05,000/-together with interest @ 13% per annum from Ist January, 2006 till the date of realization. 7. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part and the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-together with interest @ 13% per annum from 1.1.2006 till the date of realization.