ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Dr. Ashok Dwarkadas Motiwala And Anr

J.M. Malik, J

The appellant, ICICI Bank filed an O.A. against the respondents Dr. Ashok Dwarkadas Motiwala and Ms. Smita A. Motiwala in the year 2005. It claimed a sum of Rs. 12,61,549/- together with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. on the said sum till the date of its full realization, costs and other usual reliefs. The learned trial Court presided over by Mr. A.K. Tripathi dismissed the said O.A. with costs which were quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved by that order, the Bank has filed the present appeal.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties. The case of the appellant is that Dr. Ashok Dwarkadas Motiwala, respondent No. 1 approached the appellant Bank and received a personal loan of Rs.12,50,000/- vide agreement signed by both the respondents herein. The said amount was repayable in 36 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 43,638/-. The respondents could not adhere to the financial discipline and consequently O.A. was filed against these respondents in 2005.

The Bank did not bolster its case with evidence. No evidence was adduced before the Court. No documents were got exhibited. Significant documents like loaning agreement, guarantee agreement, statement of account duly certified under Bankers' Books Evidence Act, etc. did not see the light of day. The Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no opportunity was granted to the Bank to adduce its evidence and that the documents placed by the Bank were not considered.

All these arguments are devoid of any force. In para 10 of the judgment the learned trial Court observed that both the parties were given numerous opportunities to lead evidence. It came to light that as a matter of fact none of the parties had filed original documents which they relied upon, nor had the same were got exhibited. It was also mentioned in the impugned order that no attempt was made to summon the documents to prove the pleadings. The impugned judgment also mentioned that the Bank did not appear when the case was fixed for final arguments. The learned trial Court dismissed the O.A. on the following grounds. No legal authorization was produced on record by Mr. Gulshan Sachdeva who sworn affidavit on behalf of the Bank. Again, no legal authorization or power of attorney in favour of Mr. Amit Batra, the official of the Bank who had filed the O.A., was filed on record. Even in the appeal as well no documents were produced or showed to the Court. Consequently, in absence of those documents, the case of the Bank collapses like a proverbial house of cards.

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the O.A. with costs. Court cannot pass order merely on the pleadings simplicitor.

In the result, the appeal being meritless, it is dismissed with costs.

Copies of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and another copy be sent to the learned DRT.