1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B.  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2409/2015

M.C. Mittal Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 

vs.

SBBJ & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER 

:

:

23^th February, 2015

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

*******

Shri Umesh Sharma for the petitioner

Shri Alok Garg for the respondent.

##

This   writ   petition   has   been   filed   by   the

petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be

directed   to   recover   the   loan   first   from   the

petitioner's mortgaged property as the petitioner

is   the   principal   borrower   and   then   can   proceed

against the guarantor. Prayer has been made that

the respondents be restrained not to auction the

property of the guarantor. 

It   is   contended   that   petitioner   obtained   a

loan of Rs.1.50 crore from the respondent‐bank for

construction of the cold storage. Before sanction

of loan, the bank assessed the mortgaged property

of petitioner by the valuer of bank at more than

Rs.3   crores.   All   of   sudden   on   23.5.2009,   an

incident   of   fire   took   place   and   cold   storage

building of the petitioner along with commodities

were   burnt   for   which   petitioner   suffered   huge

2

losses. He lodged an FIR at Police Station Ramganj

Mandi, Kota Rural to this effect. Thereafter, he

applied   for   loan   of   Rs.1.25   crores   before   the

respondent‐bank   for   revival   and   capacity

enhancement of existing unit and after completing

formalities, the respondent‐bank further sanctioned

the loan of Rs.1.25 crores in favour of petitioner

vide sanction order/letter dated 12.01.2010. It is

contended that the property of the petitioner which

is lying in the bank as mortgaged property is of

more than Rs.3 crores which is more than the loan

amount. Now the bank wanted to recover the loan

amount   from   the   guarantor   whereas   it   is   first

responsibility  of   the   petitioner‐borrower   himself

to repay the loan amount. Petitioner is ready that

first bank  shall auction the mortgaged property of

petitioner   for   recovery   of   loan   amount   as   the

property of the petitioner is more than Rs.3 crores

and   thereafter   shall   fasten   the   liability   to

recovery the loan amount from the guarantor.

Shri   Alok   Garg,   learned   counsel   for   the

respondents submits that the cold storage of the

petitioner which is mortgaged with the respondents

was put to auction on as many as three occasions

and each time the reserved price was reduced, even

3

then no one has come forward to offer the bid and,

therefore, under compulsion, the respondent had to

proceed against the guarantor. It is argued that

liability   of   principal   borrower   as   well   as

guarantor is co‐extensive in law. 

Shri   Alok   Garg,   learned   counsel   for   the

respondents submits that petitioner cannot object

to   the   action   of   the   respondents   in   proceedings

against the guarantor.  

Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits

that he may be permitted to approach the bank with

reasonable offer and also if possible along with

buyer   who   may   be   ready   to   purchase   the   cold

storage. 

Having   regard   to   the   facts   aforesaid,

petitioner   is   set   at   liberty   to   approach   the

respondent‐bank by depositing a reasonable amount

not less than 10% to prove his bonafides. However,

if   he   fails   to   bring   any   such   logical   and

reasonable offer within one month, the respondents

may proceed against the guarantor for recovery of

the due amount. 

The   writ   petition   is   disposed   of   with   the

above directions and observations.

         (Mohammad Rafiq),J.

RS/53

All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi

4

Sharma,P.A.)