Judges : THOMAS
VELAYUDHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 867 of 1984
Decided On : 02/17/1988
Advocates Appeared :
P. Ramakrishnan Nair; For Petitioner
Guarantor - Obligation to Account - S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the obligation of a guarantor to account to the decree-holder under S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that a guarantor's liability is based on an undertaking to perform in the event of non-performance by the principal obligor, and that a guarantor has a fiduciary obligation to account to the person who acted on the strength of the guarantee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a guarantor for a loan, resisted arrest for non-payment of the decree debt, claiming no means to pay. The court held that as a guarantor, he had a fiduciary obligation to account to the decree-holder, and thus, the plea of no means was not available to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the guarantor, under S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has an obligation in a fiduciary capacity to account to the decree-holder, and dismissed the petitioner's plea of no means.
Issues: The main issue was whether a guarantor has an obligation in a fiduciary capacity to account to the decree-holder, and whether the plea of no means was available to the guarantor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a guarantor has a fiduciary obligation to account to the decree-holder, as per S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the plea of no means was not available to the guarantor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the lower court's decision and ruling that the plea of no means was not available to the guarantor.
1. What is the position of a guarantor (or even a surety) vis-a-vis the creditor-has he any obligation is a fiduciary capacity to account to the creditor? If he has, he is not entitled to advance a plea of "no means", when the decree-holder takes out execution proceedings for his arrest and detention. The petitioner is one of the judgment-debtors. The court below spurned down his plea that he has no means to pay the decree debt on the reasoning that he, being the guarantor, is in a fiduciary capacity to account to the decree-holder.
2. The State Bank of India ('the Bank' for short) advanced a loan to one Krishnan on a guarantee given by the petitioner for the due repayment of the loan. The bank filed a suit and obtained a decree against Krishnan as well as the petitioner. Krishnan died in the meanwhile and the bank proceeded against the petitioner in execution. The decree-holder prayed for issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It was resisted by the petitioner contending that he has no means to pay the decree debt. The court below, by the impugned order, held that such a plea is not available to him. The short order of the lower court is extracted below:
"Petition filed under 0.21 R.38 for arrest of the respondent to realise the decree debt. The respondent being a guarantor by virtue of Clause (c) of the proviso to S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plea of no means is not available to the respondent. Hence arrest respondent by 12-4-1984".
3. Learned counsel contended that the Sub Judge was obviously wrong since a guarantor (or even a surety) has no fiduciary obligation. The liability of such person is not different from any other judgment-debtor and hence execution of the decree by arrest and detention in prison cannot be ordered unless the court is satisfied that he has the means to pay atleast some substantial portion of the decree debt, according to counsel. It was confessed, during the time of arguments, that despite best efforts a decision or authority could not be traced in support of the view that a guarantor has no obligation in a fiduciary capacity. So, the question has to be considered unaided by any case-law as such.
4. S.51 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the different modes for executing a decree. The proviso to the Section contains some limitations in execution of a money decree by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor. The proviso together with the relevant clause (c) is extracted below:
"Provided that where the decree is for the payment of money execution by detention In prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment-debtor an opportunity of showing cause why be should not be committed to prison, the Court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied.
(c) that the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account."
5. Obligation to account to the decree-holder is the first requirement of the clause, and every judgment-debtor whether be is a principal debtor or a mere guarantor or a surety has the laid obligation to the decree-holder in accordance with the nature or circumstance in each case. Learned counsel cited the decision in Prem Bailabh v. Mathura Dutt (AIR. 1967 SC. 1342), wherein a partner in a firm was found to be having no obligation in a fiduciary capacity to account to the other partners. In that case, a decree was passed in favour of one of the partners in a firm against some ether partners including the Managing Partner. It was held that in the absence of special circumstances, a partner cannot be regarded as a trustee for the other partners. On the facts, and in principle, the observations in the said decision have no bearing on the question involved in this case.
6. A guarantor's liability is based on an undertaking or promise to perform the thing or the act in the evert of non-performance by the principal obligor. A guaranty itself is an undertaking by one person that if another person fai
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.