Loading...

M/S Amber Woollen Mills And … vs Syndicate Bank And Another on 11 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Amber Woollen Mills And … vs Syndicate Bank And Another on 11 November, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
             AT CHANDIGARH.

                              RSA No.222 of 1987 (O&M)
                          Date of decision:   11.11.2009




M/s Amber Woollen Mills and another
                                            -----Appellants
                        Vs.
Syndicate Bank and another
                                           ----Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

Present:- Mr. RS Sihota, Senior Advocate with
          Mr. B.R.Rana, advocate for the appellants.

         None for the respondents.

Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the original

defendants against decree granted by the courts below for

recovery of the amount.

2. The plaintiff Bank filed suit for recovery of

Rs.5,78,162.20 being the amount due towards repayment of

loan advanced to the defendants.

3. The appellants contested the suit. Advancement

of loan was admitted. Dispute was raised about nature and
RSA No.222 of 1987 (O&M) 2

terms of loan and particularly whether loan was against

mortgage of property.

4. The trial court decreed the suit accepting the case

of the plaintiff Bank and rejecting the stand of the

defendants. It was held that title deeds had been handed

over to the Bank and relevant documents had been duly

executed by the defendants. On appeal, the findings of the

trial court have been affirmed.

5. The appeal has been pending for the last for than

22 years. The appeal can be entertained only if there is any

substantial question of law. No substantial question of law

has been framed. Even during the course of hearing,

learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to

frame or show any substantial question of law. Only

submission is that finding of the courts below that title

deeds were handed over at Narela branch by way of

equitable mortgage was erroneous. This being a finding of

fact, no substantial question of law arises.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

November 11, 2009                      (Adarsh Kumar Goel)
'gs'                                      Judge
 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information