IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, J.
India Realty Excellence Fund II LLP - Appellant
Versus
Gautam Jagdish Ahuja – Respondent
Summons For Judgment No.4 of 2021 In Commercial Summary Suit No.317 OF 2020
Decided on : 29-08-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVII Rule 6 (a) - Seeking a judgment and decree jointly - redemption of Debentures - Plaintiff seeks an order and decree against defendants to jointly and severally pay to plaintiff a sum till payment and a realization thereof – No one has appeared for defendants although opportunities were granted - Para 20.
Finding of the Court: Writ of summons was duly served on defendants on 2nd February 2021 and affidavit proving service was filed - They have also filed their reply to summons for judgment - However, no one has appeared for defendants although opportunities were granted - Matter was therefore listed for an ex parte decree - Defendants are deemed to have admitted allegations in plaint and therefore, plaintiff becomes entitled to a decree - Material on record indicates that claim of plaintiff is admitted by defendants - Defendant is now adjudged an insolvent pursuant to an order of court - Defense sought to be raised in response to summons for judgment is frivolous and therefore leave to defend is refused - Consequently, as per Order XXXVII Rule 6 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff is entitled to a judgment forthwith.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Suit is filed in its Commercial Division under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff seeks an order and decree against the defendants to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs 15,80,00,000/- along with IRR @ 20% per annum on Rs.15,80,00,000/- from 31st March 2018 till 31st July 2020, amounting to Rs. 24,19,35,000/- along with further IRR @ 20% per annum from 1st August 2020 till payment and a realization thereof.
2. The plaintiff further seeks an amount of Rs. 17,07,256/- as interest @ 2% per month on the amount of Rs. 22,58,50,000/- from 16th March 2020 till 31st July 2020 and further interest of 2% per month on the amount of Rs 22,58,50,000/- from 1st August 2020 till payment and a realization thereof. As per the particulars of claim. (Exhibit N to the Plaint).
Brief Facts
3. The plaintiff is a limited liability partnership and is registered with the Security and Exchange Board of India as category-II Alternative Investment Fund under the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations 2012. The Defendant nos.1 and 2 are promoters of Sai Ashray Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘the Company’) and Gajanana Land & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘Primary Obligor’). The defendant no.1 is a director on the board of the Company.
4. By the present suit the Plaintiff seeks seeking a judgment and a decree jointly and severally against the defendants as guarantors under the deeds of guarantee dated 21st March 2018 executed by the defendants respectively in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff’s under a Debenture Subscription Agreement (‘DSA’) dated 31st January 2014 and an addendum thereto dated November 2014 subscribed to and held an aggregate of 86 secured, optionally convertible, cumulative, redeemable debentures of face value Rs.1,00,00,000/- issued and allotted by the company aggregating to a sum of Rs.86,00,00,000/- (‘Subscription Amount’). A Debenture Trust Deed (‘DTD’) was executed to secure the payments under the DSA on 4th February 2014.
6. On the due date the Company failed to make payment upon request for redemption of the Debentures by the Plaintiff. On 21st March 2018 the Plaintiff and the Defendants arrived at an understanding and executed a Settlement Agreement. It was recorded in Recital D, Clause 1.2 (f) and (g) in the Settlement Agreement that ECL Finance Limited had agreed to lend the sum of Rs 72,00,00,000/- which would be utilized entirely to redeem the debentures held by the plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s condition under the agreement was that the Primary Obligor and Defendants would pay on the Difference amount of Rs 15,80,00,000/- an IRR of 20% from the date on which Rs 72,00,00,000/- is paid till the Plaintiff converts the Difference amount of Rs.15,80,00,000/- into equity shares in accordance with clause 7 or 1.2 (b) of the Settlement Agreement.
7. Based on the covenants and promises recorded in the Settlement Deed, the defendants executed unconditional and irrevocable Deeds of Guarantee dated 21st March 2018 in favour of the plaintiff. It is stated that the terms of both the Deeds of Guarantee are identical to each other. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiff was paid the Refinancing Amount by the Company on 31st March 2018.
8. As per the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant no.1 provided a cheque bearing no.472432 drawn on Cosmos Bank, Vile Parle Branch, Mumbai for the amount of Rs.15,80,00,000/-. The Primary Obligor also issued a demand promissory note dated 21st March 2018 for an amount of Rs. 15,80,00,000/-. In addition to the aforesaid, a Debenture Trust Deed (‘G DTD’)was executed between the Primary Obligor, Defendants, and Plaintiffs for 5 secured redeemable and optionally convertible debentures of the Primary Obligor aggregating to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The repayment obligation under the G DTD was secured inter alia by a mortgage of 36 flats in the Prasadam Project allotted by the Company to the Primary Obligor under an allotment letter dated 19th March 2018.
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited V/s. Hubtown Limited
The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras and Ors V/s. Mangalambal and Ors
Mortgage covenant to pay secured obligations for third-party debentures constitutes guarantee under Section 126, qualifying as financial debt despite no direct disbursement to corporate debtor; claim....
Limitation against personal guarantor under on-demand guarantee deed commences from date of demand notice invoking guarantee, not principal borrower's default date. Section 95 applications filed with....
The court dismissed the insolvency petition as the creditors failed to establish due debt and acknowledged that ongoing disputes over repayment obligations preclude the initiation of a resolution pro....
The court ruled that the petitioner's claim of debt default lacked merit as the Corporate Debtor was solvent, and the insolvency proceedings cannot replace individual debt recovery methods.
The surety's liability persists despite creditor actions that do not impair the security, as established in the guarantee deed.
The insolvency of a corporate debtor and the subsequent approval of a resolution plan do not discharge a personal guarantor from liability, as the guarantor’s obligation is co-extensive and arises fr....
The court upheld the plaintiff's claim for recovery from the estate of the insolvent, emphasizing the validity of the memorandum of compromise and the necessity of expedient resolution for creditors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.