✦ Bombay High Court · 28 Jun 2012

Canara Bank v. Mrs. Shakila N. Rai & Anr.

A A SAYED

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

..Plaintiffs. Canara Bank Vs. Mrs. Shakila N. Rai & Anr. ..Defendants. ----- Mr. R.C. Dubey i/b M/s Sanjeev Kanchan & Co., for the Plaintiff-Bank. ---- CORAM: A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : JUNE 28, 2012. P.C.: 1 The Plaintiff-Bank has filed this suit for recovery of sum of Rs.4,67,962.34 with further interest thereon @ 20.29% per annum from the date of suit till payment or realisation. 2 The Plaintiff-Bank has granted Open Cash Credit Limited of Rs.3,00,000/- on or around 1.9.1995 to the Defendants. The Defendants agreed to repay the amount with interest @4.5% per annum above the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of 16.5% p.a. and further 2 S.2592-2000.sxw additional interest @2% p.a. above agreed rate. The Defendants executed the following documents, all dated 1st September, 1995: (i) Demand Promissory Note; (ii) Letter of Undertaking; (iii) Letter agreeing to bear Guarantee Fees payable to DICGC; (iv) Cash Credit Agreement under which the Defendants hypothecated Stock-in-Trade. (v) Agreement for Collateral Security for Hypothecation of Plant and Machinery. A Guarantee Agreement was executed by the Defendant No.2 guaranteeing repayment. 3 On 28.3.1997 and 3.7.1999, the Defendant No.1 executed Letters of Acknowledgement of Debt. Inspite of several demands by the Plaintiff-Bank, the Defendants failed and neglected to pay the liabilities under the said Credit Limit. The Plaintiff-Bank also sent notices through their Advocate dated 12.8.1997 dated 24.2.2000. However, the outstanding dues remained to be paid. 3 S.2592-2000.sxw 4 The Defendants have failed to file Written Statement despite the service of Writ of Summons. The claim of the Plaintiff-Bank has gone uncontroverted. The suit is listed for exparte decree. 5 The Plaintiff-Bank has filed Affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief and Compilation of documents. The Plaintiff-Bank has made out a case for the grant of reliefs and is entitled to a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6 The suit to stand decreed against the Defendants in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) with a modification that the Plaintiff-Bank shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of filing of suit till payment or realisation. (A.A. SAYED, J.) 4 S.2592-2000.sxw

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VIII r. 10.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 28 Jun 2012. The bench was A A SAYED.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments