1. The first appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 7.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.3, Guwahati in Money Suit No. 4 of 2004 dismissing the suit on the point of limitation.

2. The Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ('Corporation') instituted Money Suit No.4 of 2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 3, at Guwahati against B.S. (Assam) Industries (P.) Ltd. and two others. The suit was for realization of a sum of Rs.1,49,12,742.83. It is stated in the plaint that on 21.6.1982, defendant' company applied for financial assistance for manufacturing three lakhs LPG cylinders from its plant to be set up in 12 acres of land belonging to one A.C. Barooah of Village-Gauripur, North Guwahati. The loan application was amended on many occasions and finally the target and production was fixed at one lakh fifty thousand LPG cylinders per annum. The plaintiff by its sanction order dated 20.1.1986 sanctioned a term of loan of Rs.66.8 lakhs and seed capital assistance of Rs.7 lakhs for the purpose. The defendant No.1 also accepted the terms and condition as mentioned in the sanction letter and thereupon adopted a resolution empowering to sign and execute all documents on behalf of defendant No.1 for availing the financial assistance. After the necessary formalities were completed a loan agreement was executed between the parties on 6.5.1986 with the following features :

(i) That the defendant was sanctioned a term loan of Rs.66.80 lakh and seed capital assistance of Rs.7.00 lakhs.

(ii) The loan would bear interest of 12.5% per annum calculated at 6 monthly rests on March 31 and November, 30 each year.

(iii) The defaulted installments would carry additional interest of 2% per annum over and above the normal rate of interest calculated at half yearly rests.

(iv) The rate of interest would be as many be determined by the IDBI.

(v) The defendants would create first mortgage over their immoveable properties and moveable properties including its moveable machinery, machine spares, tools and accessories, etc., both present and future.

(vi) The disbursement was to be made at discretion of the plaintiff as per the evidence of utilization of disbursement, and subject to other terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

3. It is further stated in the plaint that in order to secure re-payment of the loan taken, the defendant No.1 executed a deed of hypothetication on 6.5.1986 by virtue of which the properties described in clause 2 of the contract agreement stood hypotheticated by way of first charge in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 executed guarantee for repayment of the loan on the same date, i.e., on 6.5.1986 and an undertaking was also given on 6.5.1986 by defendant No.1 in favor of IDBI not to dispose of their share holding. A seed capital loan agreement was executed by defendant No.1 on 6.5.1986 to secure the re-payment of the seed capital loan of Rs. 7 lakhs and overall interest @ 12.5% per annum was agreed to be paid on this amount in addition to a further interest of 1% per annum in case of default. A demand promissory note was given by the defendant No.1 on 6.5.1986 for Rs.66.80 lakhs. Accordingly, on 12.2.1987 plaintiff sanctioned Rs.12.20 lakhs to the defendants and Rs.3 lakhs on 9.11.1987. The same was accepted by defendant No.1 in its meeting held on 2.3.1987 for the additional sum of Rs.12.20 lakhs pursuant to sanction letter dated 12.2.1987. A supplementary loan agreement was subsequently made, between the parties but the date thereof does not figure in the body of the plaint. Be that as it may, on 10.4.1987 a fresh deed of hpothetication was made by defendant No.l with respect to the properties mentioned in clause 2 of the deed of hypothetication. Thus, a charge was created on the asset of the defendant No.l in respect of additional loan of Rs.12.20 lakhs with overall limit of Rs.86,00,00 and this was registered before the jurisdictional Registrar of Companies vide certif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document