SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DRAT, DELHI
Ranjit Singh, Chairperson
Indian Bank —Appellant
versus
Toppact Apparels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
Appeal No.228 of 2009
Decided on 17.7.2014

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.5 and 6:Mr. Pallav Saxena, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Respondents would be liable jointly and severally for amount proved alongwith costs and interest as allowed by Tribunal.

Headnote:Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Section 13(4)—Recovery of debt—Declaration of account as NPA—Case set up by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is that they had resigned from directorship of company and their resignations were duly accepted—Company had also written regarding discharge of liability of Respondent No. 6 as guarantor—Bank had also not responded to registered letters sent by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6—Once total amount recoverable by Bank was proved and Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 were held liable jointly and severally liable, restricting liability of Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 to Rs. 10,66,023/- cannot be made out—That part of order cannot be sustained and set aside—Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 would be liable jointly and severally for amount proved alongwith costs and interest as allowed by Tribunal—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8 to 10)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Ranjit Singh, Chairperson—This Appeal is filed by Indian Bank against the order passed by the Tribunal below holding the Bank entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 11,62,922/- from the Defendant Nos. 1,2, 3, 4 and 7 jointly and severally alongwith costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 16.5.1990. The liability of Defendant Nos. 4 and 7 is limited only to Rs. 10,66,023/- alongwith costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a. whereas the claim against Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 has been dismissed as it was found not proved. The Bank is aggrieved against that part of the order whereby its claim against Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 (Mr. Suresh Kochar and Mr. Raja Singh, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein) has been dismissed and also against that part of the order whereby the liability of Defendant Nos. 4 and 7 (Smt. Sweety Jain and Mr. Jagnadan Prashad, Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 herein) has been limited to Rs. 10,66,023/- alongwith costs and interest.

2. The Respondent Company No.1 had been maintaining a current account with the Appellant Bank. On the request made through its Directors (Respondent Nos. 2 to 6) the Bank sanctioned a Foreign Bills Purchase Discounting facility of Rs. 3 lacs on 20.1.1987. In January-February, 1987, the Bank granted Foreign Bills purchase/ discounting facility against export documents tendered for negotiation drawn under Letter of Credit opened by the prime Banks to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs. This was again on the request made by the Respondents. The necessary documents were executed on 12.2.1987 and to secure the repayment, Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 who were Directors as well as Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 (Mr. S.C. Jain and Mr. Jagnandan Prashad) executed their personal guarantees. Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 also created equitable mortgage of their property. Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 to 7 again executed guarantee deeds on 14.5.1987 to confirm their liability to pay the loan. Respondent No.2 also created equitable mortgage of his property. Respondent No. 1, after executing documents availed the Foreign Bills purchase/ discounting facility of Rs. 10 lacs from time to time. The amounts of these bills were credited to the current account of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1 also requested for grant of Overdraft in the current account and executed various documents which included D.P. Note dated 28.1.1988 for Rs. 2 lacs and letter of continuity. This overdraft facility was availed by Respondent No.1 from time to time, but it failed to pay the loan amount. It requested the Appellant Bank for more time to pay the loan. They renewed the loan documents in the Foreign Bills purchased Foreign Bills negotiated account on 3.2.1990. Balance confirmation-cum-acknowledgement letter with regard to outstanding in OD account was executed on 3.2.1990 confirming the debit balance of Rs. 80,976.20 as on 31.12.1989. The Board of Directors meeting held on 3.2.1990 also confirmed the correctness of Banks outstanding and its liability to pay the same.

3. Once the Respondents were not able to maintain the financial discipline, their account was declared NPA and the Bank filed O.A. for the recovery of the outstanding amount. In response to the notice, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded ex parte.

4. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed their separate Written Statement. Respondent No.5 in his Written Statement raised a preliminary objection that there was no cause of action against him. As per the said Respondent, his signatures, being a Director of the Respondent company, was obtained fraudulently in collusion by Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 on blank and printed form and same were filed without his consent. Respondent No.5 also maintained that his signatures on the guarantee deed were obtained in a fraudulent manner on blank papers. He had also rescinded the same vide registered notice dated 2.9.1988 and thus the same had come to an end after three months from the date of the said










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top