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

2017 Supreme(Tri) 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri. Chiranjib Choudhury, son of late Tara Prasanna Choudhury – Petitioner
Vs
The State of Tripura and others – Respondents
W.P(C) No. 606 OF 2017
Decided On : 31-10-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Advocate, Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A., Mr. A. Roy Barman, Advocate, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate

The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by the contract (Indian Contract Act, Section 128).

Headnote:

Guarantor - Recovery of Loan - Indian Contract Act, Section 128

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a guarantor, seeks refund of the amount deducted from his salary by the respondent bank. The petitioner's wife is suffering from cancer, and he is unable to bear the treatment expenses due to the deductions.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondent bank to stop further recovery from the petitioner but upheld his co-extensive liability as a guarantor. The court ordered the continued recovery of instalments from the borrower until the entire outstanding amount is repaid, excluding the amount recovered from the petitioner. The amount recovered from the petitioner will be refunded with interest once the outstanding amount is fully repaid by the borrower.

Issues: Recovery of loan from guarantor, financial hardship due to deductions, interpretation of Indian Contract Act, Section 128

Ratio Decidendi: The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by the contract (Indian Contract Act, Section 128). The court upheld the guarantor's liability but directed the refund of the amount recovered from the guarantor once the borrower repays the entire outstanding amount.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondent bank to stop further recovery from the petitioner. The court upheld the guarantor's liability but ordered the refund of the amount recovered from the petitioner once the borrower repays the entire outstanding amount.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

The petitioner is a Program Assistant in the Tribal Welfare Department, now posted at Gandacherra, Dhalai and is due to retire very shortly. In the year 2010, he stood the guarantor along with another Mr. Nidan Chandra Bhowmik, not a party in this proceeding, against the “Consumer Durable Loan” obtained by the respondent No.4 to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Tripura Gramin Bank, Gandacherra branch, the respondent No.5 vide loan account No. CDL/8094301921632.

2. The respondent No.4, the borrower gave a written undertaking dated 26.04.2010 authorising the respondent No.5 to recover the entire loan amount alongwith interest from his S/B A/C No.12186 till liquidation of the loan. In the said undertaking the respondent No.4 had also authorised his employer to realise dues by instalments from his salary in the event of default till liquidation of loan alongwith interest and other charges. The respondent No.3, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the loanee, issued a certificate dated 06.05.2010 which was submitted to the bank by the respondent No.4 while processing the loan. In the said certificate it was pledged to the bank as under:

“We also certify that, on default, if intimated we shall realize the entire loan amount along with interest thereon from the salary bill of Sri Achinta Dasgupta, I/C Programme Officer and arrange to credit the proceeds to the loan a/c directly to Tripura Gramin Bank Gandacherra Branch. In case of transfer the due instalment amount will be recorded in L.P.C. of the concerned employee. Further in case of resignation/death/retirement of the employee/officer the entire amount along with due interest will be recovered from terminal benefits payable to the employee/officer or his/her survivors.”

3. The respondent No.4 for availing the said loan issued one letter of authority favouring his Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the respondent No.3 whereby the said DDO was authorised to deduct the monthly instalments in order to re-pay the loan. It was mentioned in the said authority letter that in case the service of the borrower (the respondent No.4) ceases for whatever reason, the entire loan amount including accrued interest thereon may be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to the borrower. It was also mentioned that the said authority letter is binding upon the heirs/executors/administrators and assignees of the borrower (the respondent No.4). In addition to this arrangement, the respondent No.4 hypothecated the consumer goods to the respondent No.5 and as per the term of hypothecation, the respondent No.4 pledged that the consumer goods shall remain hypothecated to the bank, the respondent No.5 and those would be first charged as security for realisation of outstanding in the loan account.

4. The petitioner has candidly submitted that as a guarantor, he had also executed one authority letter dated 22.05.2010 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] authorising the bank, the respondent No.5 to realise the outstanding of the loan from his account, in the event of default. According to the petitioner, without giving any prior notice all on a sudden the respondent No.5 (Tripura Gramin Bank, Gandacherra branch) started deducting a sum of Rs.3,000/- from his account which the petitioner maintained being S/B A/c No.8094012312181. On 06.05.2014, the petitioner and the other guarantor namely Mr. Nidan Chandra Bhowmik sent a registered letter to the respondent No.5 requesting them not to deduct the outstanding loan of the respondent No.4 from their bank accounts.

5. In reply thereto, the respondent No.5 by the letter dated 08.05.2014 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] requested the respondent No.2, the Deputy Director under whose control the respondent No.4 was then serving to recover Rs.6000/- per month from the salary bill of the respondent No.4 and remit the same to the CDL account of the respondent No.5 through their Pabiacherra (Kumarghat) branch or transfer to the credit of SB a/c No.80940123





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

AI

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