TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etailed in annexure "A" and they were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount advanced to the company. Defendant No. 1 mortgaged the properties given in schedule A B(1) of the plaint for the loan mentioned at serial No. 2 in annexure "A" and properties given in schedule A B(2) for the loans mentioned at serial Nos. 3 and 4 in the said annexure. On October 26, 1979, all the outstanding amounts in the various loan accounts were transferred to the branch protested bills account. The total of the said amounts comes to Rs. 21,34,247.83. Out of that amount, an amount of Rs. 93,600 was received by the plaintiff from the company. After deducting the said amount, the total amount due from the defendants comes to Rs. 20,40,647.83. The interest on the said amount from October 26, 1979, to September 13, 1980, the date of filing of the suit, at the contractual rate, comes to Rs. 2,56,742.12. Thus, the total amount which was due from the defendants to the plaintiff comes to Rs. 22,97,389.95. Gian Singh, A. D. Aggarwal and Harnarain Singh have since died and their legal representatives have been impleaded at serial Nos. 2, 5 and 6 respectively as parties. The plaintiff instituted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid provision, framed the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. Regulation 77 provides that plaints, written statements, petitions and applications may be signed and verified on behalf of the State Bank by the chairman or by any officer or employee empowered by or under regulation 76 to sign documents for and on behalf of the State Bank. Under regulation 76, notification was issued on September 26, 1959, authorising agents to sign the documents mentioned in the said regulation 76. Subsequently, by notification dated August 26, 1972, the designation of agents was changed to that of branch managers. Thus, from the notification it is evident that the branch managers are entitled to sign plaints, petitions, etc., under regulation 77. A similar matter came up before this court in State Bank of India v. Kashmir Art Printing Press [1981] PLR 300; [1983] 54 Comp Cas 56 (P H), wherein the learned judge, after noticing all the above said provisions, held that the branch manager had the authority not only to sign the pleadings and verify them, but had the authority to sign a vakalatnama to authorise an advocate to file suit or to file the same himself. It is further held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n v. Depro Foods P. Ltd.) decided on December 3, 1981. After noticing the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, it was observed by me that the filing of particulars of the charge together with the instrument or copy thereof within 30 days after the date of creation of the charge is necessary and not registration of the charge with the Registrar. The reason is that the registration of the charge is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar and in case he makes delay in doing so, the charge-holder cannot be held responsible. The Registrar has also been given power to allow the charge-holder to send the particulars, etc., within 7 days after the expiry of the limitation period if he satisfies that he could not file the same for a sufficient cause within the prescribed period. After the particulars, etc., have been filed, then the responsibility of the registration of the charge shifts on to the Registrar. It is further observed that thus a charge-holder is absolved of his duty as soon as he filed particulars of the charge, etc., with the Registrar. Consequently, I hold that all the above-said three loans are deemed to be registered. Regarding the loans at Nos. 3 and 4, it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. 6,04,232.52 2 2. 2,31,319.31 3. 39,991.17 4. 57,911.65 5. 1,11,335.36 6. 3,03,333.34 7. 4,50,623.34 8. 1,87,509.05 9. 25,604.96 10. 1,22,387.13 The total of the said amounts comes to Rs. 21,34,247.83. The details have been given in the table annexure 'A'. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 93,600 is stated to have been received by the plaintiff from the company. Thus, the balance which remains as outstanding is Rs. 20,40,647.83. The plaintiff instituted the suit on September 13, 1980. The interest from October 27, 1979, to September 12, 1980, comes to Rs. 2,56,742.12 at the contractual rate of interest. Thus, the total amount due on the date of the institution of the suit is Rs. 22,97,389.95. The plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the said amount. Issue No. 4 : I shall deal with all the guarantors separately. Gian Singh, whose legal representatives are mentioned as defendants at serial No. 2, gave guarantee regarding the following loans, vide the documents mentioned against their names : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f procedure like rules of evidence are intended to secure and not to defeat justice. It is further held that it is in that spirit that they have to be construed. It is true that in the present case, no notice has been served by the plaintiff but it was for the defendant to come and plead that he had suffered some loss on account of non-service of the notice. Defendants mentioned at serial No. 6 appeared after service of the notice but they did not plead that they suffered on account of non-receipt of notice of dishonour of the pronotes. The other defendants did not appear and contest the suit. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the non-service of the notice will not discharge the legal representatives of Gian Singh from the liability mentioned in the demand promissory notes, exhibits P-3, P-12, P-30, P-36, P-25 and P-44. They thus became liable to reimburse the plaintiff to the extent of the amounts mentioned therein. Besides the promissory notes, the plaintiff also got executed the deeds of guarantee from Gian Singh who undertook to reimburse the plaintiff in case the money was not paid by the company. From both the documents it is established that Gian Singh is liable to reimburs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as stated above, it cannot be held that the suit is bad either for non-joinder or misjoinder of parties or for misjoinder of causes of action. Issue No. 9 : The plaintiff has prayed that a money decree be passed against the defendants with future interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum with effect from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. In order to prove the rate of interest, the plaintiff had made reference to the agreements executed at the time of extending the loans and the pronotes. In both the documents it is stated that the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at 1 per cent above State Bank advance rate with a minimum of 15 per cent per annum. Nothing has been brought to my notice in which the State Bank advance rate of interest is mentioned. Even the manager of the plaintiff did not state what was the State Bank advance rate of interest on that date. On the other hand, it is admitted by Mr. Chhibbar that the plaintiff has charged interest from the company at the rate of 14% per annum on all the accounts. In these circumstances, I consider it proper to grant to the plaintiff future interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum. Mr. Chhibba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
