2000 (3) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a customer borrowed from the bank and details of the transactions. The amount was not a loan against a security. The amount, which the petitioners have to repay to the bank, is shown in the records of the bank as borrowings made against a cash credit account. While the petitioners ran an overdraft a stage came when the bank would not permit any further borrowings by withdrawals. The bank made a request to the petitioner to fortify the overdraft by securities. The petitioner did not regularise the position. 3. The state of the record lay thus : The petitioners ran an overdraft but declined to respond to the request of the bank to furnish securities. The petitioners were losing the confidence of its bank on their credibility. The bank w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Court does know this much from the record of the writ petition that the loan was processed against a sanctioned limit of Rs. 4.5 lakhs and about the year, 1990, the petitioners were seeking enhancement of the limit up to Rs, 5,30,000. As the matter went before the Tribunal the bank indicated its debt, as on 28-12-1997 at Rs. 18,38,475.24. 6. The trade transactions between the petitioners as a customer and the bank as a creditor had taken place prior to the year 1990. The petitioners do not disclose this in the writ petition nor in the present appeal. Nor do they indicate the date when they ran into the overdraft. 7. One aspect is clear and on this there is no issue that the petitioners applied and sought credit from the bank. On....