TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The amount was not a loan against a security. The amount, which the petitioners have to repay to the bank, is shown in the records of the bank as borrowings made against a cash credit account. While the petitioners ran an overdraft a stage came when the bank would not permit any further borrowings by withdrawals. The bank made a request to the petitioner to fortify the overdraft by securities. The petitioner did not regularise the position. 3. The state of the record lay thus : The petitioners ran an overdraft but declined to respond to the request of the bank to furnish securities. The petitioners were losing the confidence of its bank on their credibility. The bank was left with no option but to deliver a notice to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition that the loan was processed against a sanctioned limit of Rs. 4.5 lakhs and about the year, 1990, the petitioners were seeking enhancement of the limit up to Rs, 5,30,000. As the matter went before the Tribunal the bank indicated its debt, as on 28-12-1997 at Rs. 18,38,475.24. 6. The trade transactions between the petitioners as a customer and the bank as a creditor had taken place prior to the year 1990. The petitioners do not disclose this in the writ petition nor in the present appeal. Nor do they indicate the date when they ran into the overdraft. 7. One aspect is clear and on this there is no issue that the petitioners applied and sought credit from the bank. On this faith the bank evaluated the credit of the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anned economy. Innocent persons, who have nothing to do with these bad debts, as a nation will be paying taxes, direct or indirect, to make up for this deficit. 10. The reason the petitioner would not file an appeal under the Act is that it requires the deposit of 75 per cent of the amount which is due, which the petitioners say has yet to be determined by a final order, which if not done the appeal is not maintainable. The petitioners perhaps do not appreciate that this much tolerance has been provided by the Legislature to ensure deposit of three quarters of the amount which is undisputed. The petitioners, clearly, are evading the deposit of 75 per cent of the amount which the petitioners know is due but are avoiding to deposit, as st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
