1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 136/2007 (State Bank of India, Akola VERSUS Wasudeo Ramchandra Javarkar & 3 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri M.Anilkumar, counsel for the appellant. Shri U.N. Vyas, counsel for the R1, 2 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 15, 2008. Heard Shri M.Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Vyas, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2 and 4. By this second appeal, the appellant challenges the two concurrent judgments passed by the trial and the appellate Court, by which the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of sum of Rs.1,78,060/- was dismissed. The appellant is the plaintiff bank. A suit was filed by the plaintiff Bank for recovery of Rs.1,78,060/- along with interest thereon. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs.2,37,000/- to the defendants with interest @ 15.5% per annum for purchase of a tractor and trailer. Since an amount of Rs.1,78,060/- was outstanding towards interest, the plaintiff instituted the suit. 2 The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that they had deposited the entire amount in the Bank and no amount was payable by the defendant nos.1 and 2. The defendants, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the material evidence on record, held that the plaintiff Bank had failed to prove that an amount of Rs.1,78,060/- was due against the defendants. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Both the judgments are challenged in the instant appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel that in view of the provisions of Section 21-A of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it was not open for the Courts to reopen the transaction between a Banking Company and its debtor. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the instant case, both the Courts endeavored to consider the transaction between the parties and the amounts paid by the defendant from time to time to hold that no amount was due and payable by the 3 defendant to the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that though the amount was deposited by the defendants in the savings account, the same could not have been transferred to the loan account without the permission of the defendants. Shri Vyas, the learned counsel for the respondents, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts and submitted that both the Courts have concurrently held that no amount was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff as the entire amount advanced towards loan i.e. Rs.2,37,000/- was repaid by the defendants along with interest @ 15.5% per annum. He, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the appeal. I have perused both the judgments in detail. I have also perused a part of the oral evidence tendered by the parties. The defendants had pointed out in the oral evidence that an amount of Rs.4,83,250.20 Paise was paid to the plaintiff on the dates mentioned in the deposition. The record also reveals the same. In fact, from the cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff, it was clear that the defendants had deposited certain amounts in the savings account from time to time and there was a mention in the 4 original account books that the deposits made by the defendants in the savings account were transferred to the loan account. The witness examined on behalf of the Bank further admitted that though the amounts deposited by the defendants in the savings account were transferred to the loan account, the aforesaid fact was not mentioned in the extract which was annexed by the plaintiff to the plaint. Both the Courts have considered the evidence tendered by the parties in the right perspective to hold that no amount was due and payable to the plaintiff and the suit instituted by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. The provisions of Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act would also not be applicable to the facts of the case and the counsel for the appellant cannot take resort to the same for challenging the judgments. The aforesaid provision prohibits a Court from reopening the transaction between the Banking Company and its debtor on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the Banking Company was excessive. Such was not the case here. In this case, the Courts did not hold that the rate of interest charged by the Banking Company was excessive. The Courts had considered the evidence tendered 5 by the parties on record to hold that the defendants had repaid the loan amount along with interest @ 15.5% per annum as claimed by the plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE