Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 901 - HC - Indian LawsMortgage of property - execution of guarantee deeds of the retired director - extension of loan facility and change of the terms of loan to respondent company after the retirement of director - immovable property given as collateral security or not - it is the case of petitioner is that the bank had failed to prove the execution of guarantee deeds - HELD THAT:- It is to be noticed that DRT had framed issues in the OA pending before it. After going through all the documents and evidence on record the DRT had reached to a reasoned conclusion that the issue be decided in favour of the Bank as the Bank was able to prove that present Respondent No.3 company had availed the credit facility through present Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.4, who also stood guarantors alongwith present Petitioner No. 2. Whether the agreements with D2 and D3 after 21.07.1995 discharged D4, D5, and D6? - What is the extent of liability of D4, D5 and D6? - HELD THAT:- The DRT was cautious of the fact that it was the Bank which had produced on record copy of resolution dated 24th July, 1995 of the Company for creating enhanced credit facility and the said resolution was signed by the new directors, namely, Rajan Mehta and Geetha Mehta who are Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. The Petitioners and Respondent No.4 had taken a stand before DRT that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and that appears to be a correct stand and these personal guarantee bonds were filled later on without even mentioning the names of the persons or addresses of the persons who had allegedly executed the said personal guarantees. In the present case there is no denial of the fact that initially the loan was taken by the Respondent No. 3 Company on the basis of the documents executed by the Petitioners and Respondent No. 4. As the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.4 are concerned, they were also Directors; Petitioner No.2 is wife of Petitioner No.1 and she stood surety; the collateral security was of the India Development Bonds pledged by the Respondent No.4. In June, 1995, the entire set of Directors changed and the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were inducted as new Directors of Respondent No. 3 company and the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No 4 resigned as Directors of the company - the Petitioner No. 2 requested the Bank for releasing her from her personal guarantee and Respondent No. 4 also requested the Respondent No.1 Bank to return his Bonds which was given as collateral security. It is pertinent to note here that all these documents have been produced on record by none else but the Respondent No.1 Bank itself. There is material of change in the amount being financed by the Respondent No.1 on execution of new set of documents in between the bank and Respondent No.3 company acting through Respondent Nos.5 and 6, the new directors. There is no occasion for the Bank to plead that although the new directors and surety executed the personal guarantee bonds dated 22nd July, 1995 and an immovable property worth much more than the value of loan/limits was given in mortgage, still earlier personal guarantee bonds executed by two erstwhile Directors and Petitioner No.2 are still in force - The DRT was right in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 Bank has a right to recover its dues from Respondent No.3 company as well as from Respondent Nos.5 and 6, i.e., new set of Directors and it also has the right to proceed against the property mortgaged by Respondent No.7 and all of them are jointly and severely liable. Petition disposed off.
|