Sanjay C. Saran vs Canara Bank And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

None is present for respondent No. 2 despite the fact that its Counsel was present on the last date and has knowledge of this date. Mr. Poolakkot points out that as per his instructions the appellant had not received any request from respondent No. 2 qua the non-presentation of the cheque and respondent No. 2 did not hand over any DD of Rs. 36 lacs to the appellant, as stated by its Counsel on the last date.

Heard the parties' Counsel on appeal.

Mr. Poolakkot submits that this appeal has been directed against the order dated 18.8.2010 of DRT-1, Delhi allowing O.A. No. 137/97 against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 jointly and severally for the recovery of Rs. 3,88,78,415.76 together with pendente lite and future interest. He further submits that though the appellant had initially stood as a guarantor on 21.9.1987 for the repayment of the machinery loan (ML) of Rs. 50 lacs sanctioned by respondent Bank to respondent No. 2 company, but when on 22.2.1992 the Bank again sanctioned a working capita] loan (WCL) of Rs. 50 lacs to respondent company, the outstanding balance of the M.L. was also adjusted. He also submits that the appellant did not take any guarantee for the repayment of WCL and his liability towards the payment of the ML had come to an end after the outstanding of the ML was adjusted at the time of sanctioning the WCL and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had extended their guarantee for the entire loan. Mr. Poolakkot also submits that this Tribunal, vide order dated 6.5.2011, had directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 35 lacs, under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, which was duly deposited by him. He points out that besides the said deposit the appellant had also deposited Rs. 1 lac with the Bank, pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and as such a total sum of Rs. 36 lacs is lying in deposit with the Bank, which the respondent No. 2 company is liable to pay to the appellant. He further points out that though a cheque of the same amount was delivered to the appellant by the respondent company, but it could not be cleared and dishonoured.

It appears from the record that the borrower respondent No. 2 had settled the matter with the Bank for an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores and had deposited Rs. 1.14 crore with it after making the adjustment of Rs. 36 lacs deposited by the appellant.

Considering the submission of Mr. Poolakkot and looking to the aforementioned circumstances. I am of the considered view that respondent No. 2 was not entitled to the adjustment of the amount of Rs. 36 lacs deposited by the appellant with the Bank, As the settlement has been arrived at between the Bank and respondent No. 2 to which appellant is not a party and the settlement amount of Rs. 1.5 crores was to be paid by respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 36 lacs to the Bank within four weeks along with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from the date on which Rs. 1.14 crores were paid by it. The respondent Bank is directed to release Rs. 36 lacs deposited by the appellant together with the amount of interest received from respondent No. 2 to the appellant within two weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of finally.

Copy of the order be furnished to the parties as per law.