Divergent Technologies and Others vs Central Bank of India

J.P. Singh, Judge

Decree for recovery of Rs. 86,509.10 passed on 31.3.2000 by learned 1st Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu, hereafter, referred

as ""trial Court"", has been questioned in this appeal.

Shri S. D. Sharma, learned Advocate for the appellants, raises a short submission in support of the appeal.

Learned counsel submits that finding of learned trial Court on issue No.6 is illegal, unwarranted and unjustified. According to Shri Sharma, Debt

Relief Scheme formulated by the Government of India was applicable and the amount claimed by the respondent-Bank, in the suit, stood waived

off. Shri Sharma further submits that by omitting to decide the rival contentions of the parties to the suit regarding the applicability or otherwise of

the scheme to the amount in question, learned trial Court has caused prejudice to the appellants which has in turn resulted in failure of justice.

Shri R. P. Jamwal, learned Advocate for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, submits that even though no finding has been recorded by

learned District Judge on issue No. 6, yet the omission would not render the decree unsustainable, because a bare perusal of the scheme would

show that it was not applicable to the case of the appellants, who had taken the facility of credit of Rs. one lac, whereas the Scheme was

applicable to loan facility upto Rs. 50,000/-.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. True, it is, that learned trial Court has failed to record its finding, one way

or the other, on issue No. 6. The suit, out of which present appeal has arisen, was filed as back as in 1996. About ten years have passed. Sending

the parties back for having finding of the trial Court on issue No.6, would neither be just nor desirable. Doctrine contained in maxim Actus Curiae

Nominem Gravabit does not permit putting premium on the lapse of the Court. 1, thus, requested the learned advocates to show from the scheme

as to whether or not it was applicable to the case in hand.

Learned counsel were, thus, kind enough to debate the issue of applicability or otherwise of the scheme.

Whereas Shri Jamwal, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, referred to clause 2(d)(i) of the Scheme to project his point of view. Shri

Sharma, on the other hand, emphasized that it is the outstanding amount and not the credit limit, which would determine the loan to which the

scheme had its application.

I would refer to the relevant clause of the scheme to resolve the issue: Clause 2(d)(i) ""Eligible Loans"" means:

Fresh loans/credit limits upto and inclusive of Rs. 50,000/- as principal granted by banks/financial institutions and disbursed upto and outstanding

as on the effective date, i.e. 30 June, 96 to the borrowers in the State of Jam-mil and Kashmir for the purpose of their business activity for example

tourism, transport, small scale industry, trade sector, hotel, house-boat business, retail trade, etc.

Perusal of the extracted clause leaves no manner of doubt that it is the loan or credit limit, which determines the applicability of the scheme to the

Eligible loans. Amount disbursed or outstanding does not determine the eligibility. Such an interpretation of the scheme, goes with the intendment of

the scheme which is applicable to loans/credit facility unto Rs. 50,000/-.

Credit facility in the present case is admitted by the parties, in their pleadings, as Rs. one lac. In this view of the matter, I thus hold that Debt

Relief Scheme for the Borrowers in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not applicable to the credit facility in question.

Finding of the trial Court on issue No.6 is, thus, upset and issue decided against the defendants-appellants and in favour of the respondent-

Bank.

Contention raised by Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, is thus rejected. No other point has been urged in support of the appeal.

This appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.