1988 PLP 617 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 7‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Suit for recovery of loan‑‑ Claim of plaintiff‑Bank having been proved by documents produced in evidence‑‑Court decreed suit for recovery of loan against defendants with direction that property and goods hypothecated be sold and utilized towards satisfaction of decree. S.M. Noorul Hassan for Plaintiff. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st August, 1987 This is a suit for recovery of Rs.12,50,042.68 filed by United Bank Limited, against the defendant No.l which is a private limited company and defendant No.2, who is Managing Director and defendants Nos.3 and 4 who are Directors of the defendant No.l. Defendant No.l had four accounts with the plaintiffs bank shown in detailed in para No.2 of the plaint and enjoyed credit facility. The present suit relates to the defendant No.l's L.A.P.C. Part‑II Account under which advances were made to him from time to time as stated in the statement of Accounts Annexure "A" against their entitlement under Export Refinance Scheme Part II were meant for purchases/ preparation and packing of goods for export purposes, but the defendant No.l did not always apply the funds so advanced for the said purpose, and thus violated the conditions of such advances. Defendant No.l was on its request sanctioned LAPC‑11 renewal limit of Rs.9.50,000 on 12‑12‑1983 which has been fully utilized by defendant No.l. On 30‑9‑1986 an amount of Rs.12,50,000/68 was due against defendant No.l. Defendant No.2 as Managing Directors and Defendant Nos.3 and 4 as Director of defendant No.1, executed promissory notes for Rs.9,50,000 with interest at the rate of 4$ per annum over State Bank rate with the minimum of 14$ with quarterly rests in accordance with terms and conditions of the Export Refinance Scheme. Defendant No.2 also signed letter of disbursement and letter of undertaking on 2‑10‑1983. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also executed three separate Letters of Guarantee on the said date. Defendant No.1 with a view to further secure the advances. Defendant No.l hypothecated the goods kept at their godown as further security, while defendant No.3 on behalf of defendant No.l mortgaged by depositing of title deeds property detailed in para 4(h) and executed memo confirming the deposit and General Power of Attorney. Defendant No.2, admitted and acknowledged liability of the above amount. Hence all defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally to pay the decretal amount. The defendants were served but they have chosen to remain absent in spite of service. Hence the suit has proceeded ex parte. The plaint is verified on oath. It can be read as a piece of evidence by itself. The plaintiffs have produced photo copies of the documents which were filed by them alongwith the plaint. These photo copies were compared with the originals and the original documents were returned. I am satisfied about the claim of plaintiff and, therefore, decree their suit for Rs.12,50,042.68 with 145 per annum interest with quarterly rest from 1‑10‑1986 till realization against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally. I also pass a preliminary decree for sale against defendant No.3 in respect of the property shown in the plaint under Order 34, Rule 4, C.P.C, I further direct that the goods hypothecated be sold and utilized towards the satisfaction of the decree. I also grant prior for appointment of receiver for takings over the possession of the mortgaged property as well as hypothecated goods. The Official Assignee is appointed as Receiver. Rs.1,000 to be deposited towards his fees. H.B.T./U‑16/K ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Suit decreed.