Sri Nandeeswara vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2010

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 20lC"'--.._

BEFORE

THE RONBLE 1\/{RJUSTICE SUBHASH Sf;  "  

BETWEEN

SR1. NANDEESWARA,

S/0. SR1. ANJANAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,  
M.S.W. (CARDIOLOGY DE1?T.],  -A  
M.S. RAMAIAH MEDICAL'-Hi0SP"ITA;L,  "
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE.    

ALSO._6§_T:

NO.3, 3RD CROSS;     I ._

MUEARAK CARPEN«,'"ER'*BA'€nK' SIDE,

KAMALNAG.AR.I '  ,  '

BANGALORESBO Q22.    APPELLANT

 - ._(BY .Ev§IS.__fLAw A$SOC.IATES, S. SHIVANANI),

'A I_ NEGG';'V1,IRAy KUMAR & K.S. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVS.)

AND.  V R

 [STATE BANK OF INDIA,
-«  ' ~ . ._ SHWAJIIAIAGAR BRANCH,
 ' ..BANEGAL0RE --- 560 001.
 I REGD_,.--BY ITS MANAGER,
--..f.--SRI,Y.A. KHAN (SIB DWISION.  RESPONDENT

'' (EY SRLU. ABDUL KHADER, ADV.)

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL N0:-.--1'%393/20'06_Wi\'§')?JiV'   V



2

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2006
PASSED IN O.S.NO.95/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAIATHE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ~   

J UD GMENT

This is defendar1t's appeal against the  I

decree in o.s.95/2001 on the  Adding

Judge, Bangalore.

2. The partieswill   to  qoer their

ranking  
3.  The plaintiff sought for recovery

of Rs,2'v5,6044,/f' w'1thD"v_ Coats on the ground that the

:_'j"II'defenDd'ar:.te. reguesItei:I""the plaintiff Bank by making an

eepigleiatienlfemeen of Rs. 1e,0oo/- on 1842-1997 and the

  plaintiff  eanctioned the same. The sanctioned loan

 se.nt_.D:'to one Asian Electronics and the defendant

0  e:.pe1Vfe»ha5sed BPL 21" colour TV. The defendant had availed



the term loan and failed to repay the loan amount as

agreed with interest at the rate of 13.32%, 

executed the necessary documents and as si:.ch,j*isVVi'li'ab14e " 

to pay the said amount.

4.
filed his written statement int4eraliaV.._vstating he had
not purchased the Colour Electronics and
never agreed togpay denied the loan
transactiong.    Electronics is a
necessary-partyMto'1i:the «He-specifically denied having
purchased the  which the loan was paid to

the Asian  basis of these pleadings, the

  framed 'the following issues.

 ._  the plaintiff proves that 15E defendant
A V__va*.ra§2led consumer loan and 211$ defendant
" _ undertook to deduct the monthly instalment

amount as contended in the plaint'?

The defendant on "s_ervic'e- of s1':%._itVV.ifisezmn1ons,'w.l'



4

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the

compound rate of interest as claimed?

3. Whether there is no cause of action 
suit'?  W   
4. Whether the defendants are a_nd'~
severally liable to pay the suit 'clainfamouritH":
as prayed for'? 1  if if if  
5. What order or decreev?'p:;""~-is   
5. On behalf of the  the-_Man'ager was
examined as PW.1  ./were marked in

plaintiffs e'\Vridence,_ the defendant, defendant

was exajnined as VDlW_._"however, no documents were

marked ; The ;f'ria_l"Clonrt held that the plaintiff has proved

 the ideferidant has availed the loan and the defendant

ti'i1dertool§'_to_ dileiduct the monthly installment amount as

V dd _ contende--dii1""the plaint and the plaintiff is entitled for 12%
'«V'f'flir:1te1'e4st from the date of suit and 6% on the decreetal
 and accordingly decreed the suit. It is against the

" judgment and decree, the defendant is in appeal.

f \



6. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted

that from the documents produced by 

appears that the loan was sanctioned and  V' 

Asian Electronics. However, the  ha's_ 

any evidence to show that Asian Electlronics  

21" BPL Colour TV. Asian Electroitics is  a party
and there is no delivery' amount
was alleged to have  Since it is
hypothecation   delivered, the
Bank is not   From the material
producedlllhv  it j does not prove that Asian

Electronics ..had del_iver0d."a'ny.JColour TV to the defendant.

In thisireglardq he relied on two orders passed by this

:n'ic3§§p.t1295/2004 dated 31-10-2006 and CRP

3A3'65'/.;300f§"'andl.:;'connected matters dated 17-01-2006 and

A submitted-fAtha't in identical circumstances and in respect

llsimilarylllloans released by the Bank against Asian

.'.E1e'ctro'nics, the Trial Court itself has dismissed the suit

 against the dismissal the Bank had filed revision



petitions and this Hon'ble Court has confirmed the

dismissal of the suit. He submitted that there .i.s":no-flotlrier

material to distinguish the case from the judgn}j1en*tV.:in  

295/2004 and other connected" l«}r_Ie_":Vals'o '

submitted that in nearly 30 other sixnliiar matters, *ti1'el'su'it--V.r

has been dismissed and it hase«r.attained* .finaliity;'jHowever.

the Trial Court as against  haslldecreed the
suit on the verysame   that the
judgment and  toithe judgment and
also there  loan from the
defenda:,tit,"V'ou'<sji;.f;  the suit and hence,

order of Trial Court  to be set aside.

  Qn the-....other hand, the learned counsel

v."appVelaring:_"fo1*wIthe Bank submitted that the Bank has

produeed  to R141» evidencing the sanction of loan,

doisburseinent of loan amount and hypothecation
   dated 18-12-1997 and these documents do

  the loan transaction between the plaintiff and

rgwi



it _agreernent:.'1'equires delivery of goods which

 If there is no delivery and

the defendant and submitted that the judgmentyy and

decree of the Trial Court does not call for interfe.renc'_c."V;~ " 

8.
appeal is:
"Whether the judgmentpvand decree Trial

Court warrants interfer_ence?"_...__  

9. The Bank   of loan on the
basis of hy;poth:ecatior1"":'agreement dated
18.12.1997'  Bank that the loan
 It is admitted case of

the Banlr that the was paid against the

voucherto Asia11..;Electru)nics. It is also not in dispute that

  specifically taken a plea that no such

 to the defendant. Any hypothecation
are

if there is no

evidelnce to show that such delivery was made, the

"-«hypothecation agreement does not confer any right on the

The point that arises for ,consideration"u ' . 

r%¢i



Bank to recover the amount. It is not disputed that the
recovery was sought from defendant and 
placed other defendants who are the V'
M.S.Ramaiah Medical College on the  C
availed the loan for purchase of e1ectri'c_a'l  pp
Electronics. But Asian E1ectro«r1:ic»s is r1e.i_the.r  nor
there is any materialihto  'colour TV is
delivered to the  taking into
consideration    has dismissed
the suit.  also dismissed the
similar material placed before this
Court to»  judgment passed in the

above; matters.'-.ln"these circumstances, when there is no

    of goods under hypothecation agreement

 matters, this Court having confirmed the

 _ dismissa,i°of.the suit, I do not find any reason to differ With

  ,s_ame; "Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

   I pass the following: éw

1-A



ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment

passed in O.S.N0.95/2001 dated 10.04.2000 pass¢a[

the X Add}. City Civii Judge, Bangaiore as ‘set: ‘a«.;3:i’0leV5.,I£3:A10::ti.és

to bear their own costs.