S. Lakshmanan vs CHAIRMAN And MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN BANK

THE complainant is a Pharmaceutical trader, who states that he is purchasing the products of nearly 25 pharmaceutical manufacturers, stocking them in his godowns and further distributing them to the various dealers on credit of not less than 45 days.

THE complainant requested for the grant of overdraft facilities to the tune of Rupees one crore, Rs. 50 lacs each for his two companies, i.e., SLN Agencies and Usha Enterprises. THE Opp. Party Indian Bank agreed to sanction the overdraft facilities asked for provided the Complainant furnished collateral security by deposit of title deeds of properties worth more than Rs. 2 crores (Rupees one crore each for each of the companies) and also arranged for fixed deposits to be made with the Bank for Rs. 2 crores (Rupees one crore for each of the companies). According to the Complainant, the Bank however, sanctioned over draft of Rs. 50 lacs only (Rs. 25 lacs for each company). Out of this amount sanctioned, Rs. 15 lacs was appropriated by the Opp. Party Bank towards the commission payable to the agents who mobilised deposits to the tune of Rs. 3 crores made with the Bank. A further sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs payable by the Complainant to one of his clients was also adjusted by the Opp. Party Bank against the overdraft amount sanctioned. He offered properties worth Rs. 40 lacs as equitable mortgage. The Bank also filed a criminal complaint against the Complainant with the CBI. He maintained his business has suffered because of the inadequate overdraft facilities provided to him. He has, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs. 2 crores for failure to provide full amount of loan sanctioned to him and a sum of Rupees one crore for the damage caused to his image and reputation by the false complaint with the CBI. He has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- as legal expenses for valuation of his properties offered for mortgage.

The Opp. Party Bank in its reply has stated that the Complainant Shri S. Lakshmanan has no locus standi to prefer this complaint on behalf of the proprietary concerns, viz. SLN Agencies and Usha Enterprises as one Mrs. Jayalakshmi, w/o. O.M.A. AJi Ahmed is their sole proprietrix. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Opp. Party Bank has also stated that SLN Agencies and Usha Enterprises are not pharmaceutical traders though in his complaint petition, the complainant has specifically stated that he is a pharmaceutical trader. In fact the contents of this complaint are more or less identical with the contents of the complaint in Original Petition No. 235 of 1992, i.e. Vishnu Agencies v. Indian Overseas Bank. The only differences are that the Opp. Parties are different, i.e., Indian Overseas Bank and Indian Bank, there are differences in the amounts of overdrafts sanctioned and the amounts of loans actually advanced, and deposits mobilised. These are, however, not relevant to the disposal of this case. It is also significant that in this case also the Opp. Party Indian Bank is said to have filed a complaint with the CBI. The Opp. Party has denied that a sum of Rs. 25 lacs each was sanctioned for the proprietary concerns as overdraft. The Opp. Party Bank has stated that Rs. 15 lacs each was sanctioned to SLN Agencies and Usha Enterprises as overdraft facility with 50% margin in pursuance of the Resolution of the Zonal Credit Committee held on 11th June, 1992. Besides, the parties were entitled to draw overdraft only to the extent of 50% of the value of the securities deposited "As the said proprietary concerns failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction order, the Opp. Parties (the Bank) were constrained to stop further credit facilities and for the amount outstanding a civil suit has been filed in the High Court of Judicature at Mardas for recovery of the amount due "viz. Rs. 21.64 lacs against Usha Enterprises and Rs. 4.72 lacs against SLN Agencies.

ACCORDING to the Opp. Party, it came to the notice that when the parties executed documents for Rs. 15 lacs and created mortgages over some property the same was found to have been sold prior to the mortgage. This was disclosed at a later stage. It was in this context that a complaint was filed with CBI and that a charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore in 1992 which is still pending in the said Court. The narration of the facts above shows beyond doubt that the complaint of deficiency in service is not only unjustified but is false and the Complainant has not disclosed all the true facts in his complaint. The complaint is dismissed. The Complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the Opp. Party Indian Bank. Complaint dismissed.