recovery of debt due to bank
hage nibo
(Querist) 26 March 2009
This query is : Resolved
Hi,
Can a nationalised bank recover debt even after the expiry of limitation period of 3 years without having served any notice within the limitation period
hage nibo
(Querist) 26 March 2009
The bank served Mr X a notice for the instalment dues, 3 years before, and the said borrower after having paid only a single instalment, failed to continue. And presently, there has been communication gap between the bank and the borrower for over 3 years.
Jithendra.H.J
(Expert) 26 March 2009
in your case the limitation starts from the date of paying the first installement,
some banks having the practice that they take the signature for the acknowledgement of debt without mentioning the date, later they put the date!
hage nibo
(Querist) 26 March 2009
Thanks a lot.Doesn't" the practice of taking the signature for the acknowledgement of debt without mentioning the date and later putting the date" comes under the clause of forgery?
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 26 March 2009
In my opinion Mr. Jithendra given correct answer. As far as forgery is concerned, the said working of bank comes under the clause of forgery if proved.
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL
(Expert) 26 March 2009
Yes I do agree with the view that normally banks used to get signatures without date in loan revival letters. Strictly speaking it is a case of forgery, it is also difficult to prove. On the other hand since the money involved is public money, the court takes lenient view in favour of the bank and defaulter of bank loans is shown no mercy.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 26 March 2009
banks cannot recover the debt after the expiry of 3 years. Withing issuance of notice to repay the debt to the loanee is mandatory, but some times to bring in the limitation period banks will use loan revival letter, which banks will take the signature of the loanee at the time sanctioning loan.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 27 March 2009
Once you put the signature in the reviving letter knowing it is not dated you are impliedly permiting the other party to use it for a genuine and legal purpose. No forgery will stand. Knowledge of blank dtaed letter by the party who executes the letter is meterial.
MANISH
(Expert) 27 March 2009
Agreed with the views of Mr. Jithendra
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 28 March 2009
Mr Suresh is right. You can not make grievance later on if you voluntarily permit the other party to use blank signed paper for genuine and legal purpose. If the signatures are taken by deceitful means then only forgery will come in.
hage nibo
(Querist) 28 March 2009
Thanks a lot to all the friendly participants for their valuable comments, as a part of knowledge-sharing.
Although, there seems to be no way out for the borrower, but what I feel is "plea alibi" may rescue the borrower. Do all agree on this?
