MARK INTERNATIONAL vs Bank of India

COUNSEL Mr. Rajesh Lalwani for appellant is present. This is an appeal against the order dated 27.1.1999 passed by District Forum, Unnao in Complaint Case No. 44/97.

FACTS of the case stated in brief are : That the complainant applied for a term loan of Rs. 6.43 lacs for construction of factory building, purchase of plant and machinery as well as working capital. The application was moved on 14.10.1991. Loan of Rs. 4.70 lacs was sanctioned on 14.10.1992. The rest of Rs. 1.43 lacs was to be raised by the complainant out of his own resources. The sanctioned loan was disbursed to the complainant on 2.11.1992.

The learned District Forum, on the basis of these facts, held that the cause of action arose on 2.11.1992 when the Bank refused to sanction full loan of Rs. 6.43 lacs as demanded by the complainant and only granted Rs. 4.62 lacs as loan. As the complaint was filed on 17.4.1997, it was held by District Forum to be barred by limitation. The complaint was dismissed.

AGGRIEVED from this order complainant has come up in appeal and has challenged the correctness recorded by District Forum. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the opposite party has not been granted full amount of term loan which was applied for but was granted only a sum of Rs. 4.62 lacs. Thus, the complainant has suffered damages on account of non-sanction of full amount of term loan asked for.

ACCORDING to learned Counsel the complainant was engaged in correspondence with the opposite party-Bank for sanctioning the limit of the term loan for the amount applied for. But Bank refused for increasing the amount for the reason that the Unit has become sick. According to learned Counsel the limitation will start from 1995 onwards when the opposite party failed to provide full sanctioned loan. From the judgment of learned District Forum it is clear that though the correspondence between the parties started from 1992, after sanctioning of the term loan of Rs. 4.62 lacs within a period of two years yet the complainant argued that they have not been paid full amount. Therefore, the cause of action arose on the date when the loan was not sanctioned in accordance with the demand of the complainant. Once a period for limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged by long correspondence between the parties. Correspondence between the parties shall not extend the period of limitation which has already started to run from the date of accrual of cause of action.

ARGUMENT of the Counsel for appellant, is that the cause of action will not start to run from the date of refusal to sanctioning the full amount on loan i.e. (2.11.1992). The findings of the learned District Forum on this point are perfectly correct and are supported by facts on record. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rule. Appeal dismissed.