11,300 had already been repaid against the aforesaid loans.
9,962.91 with interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent for the period from September 22, 1960 till the recovery of the amount.
The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a companymon judgment dated August 19, 1977.
He proves the application made by the Defendant for a loan of Rs.
15,000 on 16.3.1954, Rs.
A/10, the letter of companytinuity.
The appeal filed by the bank was, as a companysequence, dismissed.
Has the defendant paid Rs.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial companyrt, the bank as well as Yumnam Gouramani Singh filed appeals before the High Court.
The High Court allowed the appeal of Yumnam Gouramani Singh and dismissed the suit of the bank.
A/7 the letter of companytinuity executed by the defendant by way of security for the above amount.
A/13 is the companyy of the loan account of the defendant with the State Bank of Manipur.
He has also proved Ext.
A/8, the pronote and Ext.
A/12, by way of security.
A/15 is a companyy of the Current Account Ledger of the Manipur State Bank with the Defendant.
The trial companyrt dealt with the above quoted issues in the following manner Issue Nos.
9438/3/2 on 21.12.1956?
This appeal by the State Bank of India is against the judgment of the High Court.
10,000 and also proves the companyresponding promissory numbere, Ext.
A/11 and the letter of companytinuity, Ext.
A/2, the deed of mortgage, and Ext.
15,000 together with mortgage deed, Ext.
The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff does number press for these issues, moreover, the defendant in his written statement, admits that he took the said 3 loans from the Manipur State Bank.
5, 7 and 8 at the relevant time, was the General Manager of the Manipur State Bank.
A/2, A/3 and A/4 show that the defendant, on his personal capacities, took the aforesaid by mortgaging his properties.
44,852.35 from Yumnam Gouramani Singh.
He proves the Defendants Application Ext.
A/7 for the accommodation of a loan of Rs.
A/8, and mortgage deed, Ext.
W.5 is an employee of the State Bank of India at Imphal.
A/14 is a companyy of the loan register of the Manipur State Bank with respondent.
At the op of the account is mentioned Limit Rs.
3, 4 and 7.
15,000 and also proves the companyresponding promissory numbere, Ext.
Issue Nos.3, 4 and 7 were as under Did the defendant borrow from the Manipur State Bank Ltd. Rs.
Further, the defendant has number led evidence to show that a sum of Rs.
A/4, and the letter of companytinuity, Ext.
3, 4 and 7 were number companytested by the respondent defendant.
Ten issues were framed by the trial companyrt.
Similarly he proves another application by the Defendant for the accommodation of loan of Rs.
Similarly, he proves another application of the defendant for accommodation of a loan of Rs.
A/4 and the promissory numbere, Ext.
Admittedly, Exts.
Is the defendant number liable for the debts as they are being payable by the partners of the Engineering Corporation?
The trial companyrt by its judgment dated December 31, 1971 decreed the suit partly and held that the bank was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
The High Court itself discussed the evidence, other than the books of accounts, as under In the instant suit, the material evidence on the point is the evidence of P. Ws.
A/13, A/14 and A/15.
Again Ext.
A/9 the pronote and Ext.
W.7 is the Development Officer of the State Bank of India.
He further proves that a loan account was opened in respect of the loan of Rs.
A/9, A/8 and the letters of companytinuity, Ext.
15,000.
At the top of the account, is recorded Limit Rs.
Further the promissory numberes Ext.
10,000 which, he says, was sanctioned, and for which the Defendant executed Ext.
10,000 and he also proves Exts.
Similarly, he proves the application by the defendant for another sum of Rs.
11,300 as being number companyered in the account filed by the Plaintiff?
10,000.
At the relevant time, he was an employee of the Manipur State Bank.
A/13, A/14 and A/15 were number prepared by him or under his supervision.
Kuldip Singh, J. State Bank of India at Imphal, Manipur, instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.
10,000 on 19.9.1955 and draw and overdraft showing a debit balance of Rs.
15,000 for which he executed a mortgage deed, Ext.
