CRP. (PD).2394 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 16.03.2022

DELIVERED ON : 07.06.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

C.R.P.No.2394 of 2008

and

M.P.No.1 of 2008

M/s.TVS Finance and Services Ltd.,

(Formerly known as M/s.Haritha Finance Ltd.,)

Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr.G.Saikumar

... Petitioner/Petitioner/

/2^nd defendant.

vs.

1.M.Selvaraj

2.A.Govindarajan

... Respondents/

/1^st respondent/Plaintiff

/2^nd respondent/1^st defendant.

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, against the order dated 13.03.2008 made in I.A.No.7632 of 2005 in

O.S.No.4044 of 2004 on the file of learned XIV Asst.City Civil Judge,

Chennai.

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP. (PD).2394 of 2008

For petitioner

: M/s.Anand Abdul

For respondents

:

for R1

: Mr.P.Veeraraghavan- No appearance

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.03.2008

made in I.A.No.7632 of 2005 in O.S.No.4044 of 2004 on the file of learned

XIV Asst.City Civil Judge, Chennai.

2. The petitioner company is incorporated under the provisions of the

Companies Act 1956 and is involved in the business of Hire Purchasing,

Leasing and other financial facilities. The case of the revision petitioner is that

the petitioner had extended Bill Discounting Facilities to the 2^nd respondent

and the 2^nd respondent failed to pay the due amounts within the stipulated time

and thereafter, the 2^nd respondent approached the revision petitioner for

additional funds and agreed to provide the immovable property belonging to

the 1^st respondent as security and for which property, the 2^nd respondent is the

Registered Power Agent. The 1^st respondent also agreed to stand as Guarantor

on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. The Revision petitioner had agreed to extend

loan to the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent also agreed to stand as guarantor

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP. (PD).2394 of 2008

on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and vide letter dated 13.05.1999 confirmed that

the 2^nd respondent is his Power Agent and that the 2^nd respondent is authorised

to deal with the Schedule A property, to which the Revision Petitioner had

agreed to extend a further loan amount vide its letter dated 29.11.1999.

3. After deliberations between the Revision Petitioner and the 2^nd

respondent, it was agreed that additional amounts would be sanctioned and

major part of the said amounts would be adjusted by the Revision Petitioner

against the out-standing amounts due from the 2^nd respondent under the above

Bill Discounting Facilities and the balance would be released to the 2^nd

respondent or its nominees.

4. In terms of the said understanding, the Revision Petitioner vide its

sanction letter dated 29.11.1999 had agreed to extend loan for a sum of

Rs.12,30,500/- to the 2^nd respondent on terms and conditions contained therein.

Thereupon, the Revision Petitioner and the 2^nd respondent had entered into

agreement dated 30.11.1999 referred as “Agreement dated 30.11.99”, whereby

the revision petitioner had sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.12,30,500/- to the

2^nd respondent on terms and conditions contained therein.

3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP. (PD).2394 of 2008

5. In terms of the Sanction letter dated 29.11.1999, the 1^st respondent

had stood as Guarantor on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and had executed a

Letter of Guarantee dated 30.11.1999 in favour of the Revision Petitioner

guranteeing due payment of the amounts mentioned therein to the Revision

Petitioner. The 2^nd respondent stood as Registered Power Agent of the 1^st

respondent and had deposited the Title Deeds pertaining to the Schedule A

property in favour of the Revision Petitioner as security towards payment of the

amounts under the “Agreement dated 30.11.1999” and had also executed a

Power of Attorney dated 30.11.1999 authorising the Rev