9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... num over the bank rate with a minimum of 161/2 % per annum. It is the case of the plaintiff that on August 12, 1977, the defendant executed acknowledgment of balance due on that date to the tune of ₹ 2,03,441.40 p. and as defendant still failed to clear the debit a letter dated August 4, 1980 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant for paying the amount due which the defendant failed to pay and hence, the present suit has been filed. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff has become entitled to sell the goods pledged with the plaintiff-batik. 2. The defendant has contested the suit and has taken certain preliminary objections pleading that the plaint is not signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues were framed: 1. Was Mr. D. G. Tatke competent to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff bank? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the claim, subject matter of the suit is barred by time? 4. Whether the defendant was sanctioned cash credit facility to the limit of ₹ 2 lacs as alleged in para 3 of the plaint and the facility was availed by the defendant? 5. What amount, if any, is due to the plaintiff from the defendant under the cash credit facility (pledge)? 6. At what rate and to what amount the plaintiff is entitled to interest? 7. Relief. 4. Plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of his case while counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a position to identify his signatures. He identified the signatures of P. S. Sethi on Exs. PW 1/2 to PW 1/6. These documents show that P. S. Sethi as Managing Director of the defendant had executed these documents on behalf of the defendant for obtaining the Cash Credit Limit of ₹ 2 lakhs against pledge of goods. He has also proved signatures of P. S. Sethi on the copy of the resolution Ex. PW 1/7 which was given by P. S. Sethi to show that Board of Directors of the defendant has passed a resolution authorising P. S. Sethi to obtain the loan from the plaintiff-bank on behalf of the defendant. PW 2 was examined to prove that all these documents were signed by P. S. Sethi in his presence. Not a question was put to PW 2 suggesting that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the plaintiff had neglected to get sold the pledged goods which had led to the deterioration of the value of the goods. It appears that it is during the pendency of the suit that a receiver was appointed who took possession of the pledged goods and with the consent of the parties the pledged goods were sold for a consideration of ₹ 16,666.66 p. The short question, which arises for decision, is whether there was any legal duty cast on the plaintiff bank to take any early steps for disposing of the pledged goods. It is not the case of the defendant that the defendant had at any time required the plaintiff bank to dispose of the pledged goods and the plaintiff bank had neglected to do so. Section 176 of the Contract Act which deals wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the defendant Plaintiff bank had in its wisdom exercised the first option of filing the suit and retained the pledged goods as collateral security. So, even if the value of the goods had deteriorated due to passage of time, no relief can be obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff as the defendant was legally bound to clear the debt and obtain the possession of the pledged goods from the plaintiff' bank before the pledged goods were sold during the pendency of the suit. That is clearly provided in S.177 of the Contract Act. Hence, I hold that the interest has been rightly calculated according to the rate agreed upon between the parties and amount in the suit was due at the time of, filing of the suit. Issues are decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
