Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1184 (MAD)

Sangli Bank Limited v. Tubec Blue Metals

2012-03-05

R.BANUMATHI, S.VIMALA

body2012
Judgment (R.BANUMATHI, J.,) 1. Being dissatisfied with the rate of interest awarded in O.S.No.135 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, dated 11.07.2003, the Plaintiff-Bank has preferred this appeal. 2. First Defendant-M/s.Tubec Blue Metals, a partnership Firm with N.Thangavelu/second Defendant and Subramanyam as its partners was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.1.88 Lakhs on 23.08.1990 by the Coimbatore Branch of Plaintiff-Bank, which is now merged with ICICI Bank Limited. Since the borrowers did not repay the amount, Plaintiff-Bank has filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs.5,05,113/-with subsequent interest compounded quarterly at 23.25% on the same from date of suit till date of realisation. 3. The trial court decreed the suit claim for a sum of Rs.5,05,113/-. But, the trial court granted interest only at 6% per annum, as against the claim of interest at the rate of 23.25% compounded quarterly. Challenging the lesser interest rate awarded by the trial court, the Plaintiff-Bank has preferred the appeal. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant has stated that the fourth Defendant/third Respondent-K.T.Kalyani, who was the guarantor to the loan facility has now paid an amount of Rs.5.06 lakhs in full and final settlement of all the dues of the above Firm to the Bank under an OTS proposal offered by her, which was accepted by the Bank. The Plaintiff-Bank has also issued "No Due Certificate" stating that there are no dues outstanding in the name of the Firm to the Bank and the same shall form part of the records. Since the Plaintiff/Appellant has reported full and final settlement, recording the same, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Since the fourth Defendant/third Respondent-K.T.Kalyani being the guarantor has paid the amount of Rs.5.06 lakhs, she is at liberty to work out her remedy against the Firm/partnership Firm. It was stated that the suit in O.S.No.182 of 2010 has been filed for partition of the suit properties thereon. In the said suit, the fourth Defendant's husband-N.Thangavelu as well as the Plaintiff-Bank are the Defendants. Since the fourth Respondent has paid the entire amount to the Plaintiff-Bank, the fourth Defendant is at liberty to work out her remedy in the said suit in O.S.No.182 of 2010 by impleading herself as a party. 6. Recording full and final settlement the appeal is dismissed with the above observation. Since the fourth Respondent has paid the entire amount to the Plaintiff-Bank, the fourth Defendant is at liberty to work out her remedy in the said suit in O.S.No.182 of 2010 by impleading herself as a party. 6. Recording full and final settlement the appeal is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs.