9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guarantors of the amounts as detailed in annexure "A" and they were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount advanced to the company. Defendant No. 1 mortgaged the properties given in schedule A & B(1) of the plaint for the loan mentioned at serial No. 2 in annexure "A" and properties given in schedule A & B(2) for the loans mentioned at serial Nos. 3 and 4 in the said annexure. On October 26, 1979, all the outstanding amounts in the various loan accounts were transferred to the branch protested bills account. The total of the said amounts comes to Rs. 21,34,247.83. Out of that amount, an amount of Rs. 93,600 was received by the plaintiff from the company. After deducting the said amount, the total amount due from the defendants comes to Rs. 20,40,647.83. The interest on the said amount from October 26, 1979, to September 13, 1980, the date of filing of the suit, at the contractual rate, comes to Rs. 2,56,742.12. Thus, the total amount which was due from the defendants to the plaintiff comes to Rs. 22,97,389.95. Gian Singh, A. D. Aggarwal and Harnarain Singh have since died and their legal representatives have been impleaded at serial Nos. 2, 5 and 6 respectively as parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the aforesaid provision, framed the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. Regulation 77 provides that plaints, written statements, petitions and applications may be signed and verified on behalf of the State Bank by the chairman or by any officer or employee empowered by or under regulation 76 to sign documents for and on behalf of the State Bank. Under regulation 76, notification was issued on September 26, 1959, authorising agents to sign the documents mentioned in the said regulation 76. Subsequently, by notification dated August 26, 1972, the designation of agents was changed to that of branch managers. Thus, from the notification it is evident that the branch managers are entitled to sign plaints, petitions, etc., under regulation 77. A similar matter came up before this court in State Bank of India v. Kashmir Art Printing Press [1981] PLR 300; [1983] 54 Comp Cas 56 (P&H), wherein the learned judge, after noticing all the above said provisions, held that the branch manager had the authority not only to sign the pleadings and verify them, but had the authority to sign a vakalatnama to authorise an advocate to file suit or to file the same himself. It is further hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was observed by me that the filing of particulars of the charge together with the instrument or copy thereof within 30 days after the date of creation of the charge is necessary and not registration of the charge with the Registrar. The reason is that the registration of the charge is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar and in case he makes delay in doing so, the charge-holder cannot be held responsible. The Registrar has also been given power to allow the charge-holder to send the particulars, etc., within 7 days after the expiry of the limitation period if he satisfies that he could not file the same for a sufficient cause within the prescribed period. After the particulars, etc., have been filed, then the responsibility of the registration of the charge shifts on to the Registrar. It is further observed that thus a charge-holder is absolved of his duty as soon as he filed particulars of the charge, etc., with the Registrar. Consequently, I hold that all the above-said three loans are deemed to be registered. Regarding the loans at Nos. 3 and 4, it is not proved from exhibits P-17, P-18 and D-1 referred to by Mr. Chhibbar that they were got registered. I decide the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit on September 13, 1980. The interest from October 27, 1979, to September 12, 1980, comes to Rs. 2,56,742.12 at the contractual rate of interest. Thus, the total amount due on the date of the institution of the suit is Rs. 22,97,389.95. The plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the said amount. Issue No. 4 : I shall deal with all the guarantors separately. Gian Singh, whose legal representatives are mentioned as defendants at serial No. 2, gave guarantee regarding the following loans, vide the documents mentioned against their names : Sl. No. in annexure A Description of the account Outstandings on the date of filing of suit Exhibit of guarantee deed Exhibit of demand promissory note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Rs. Ps. 1. CC(F. & T.) of (L&K) Rs. 5,00,000 6,79,087.11 P-6 P-3 2. MTL (1) of Rs. 4,50,000 1,68,095.98 P-51 - 5. MTL (4) of Rs. 80,000 1,25,124.36 P-49 - 6. CC (Bills) of Rs. 3,00,000 3,31,523.69 - P-12 7. C.T.L. of Rs. 3,50,000 5,06,448.36 P-33 P-30 8. C.T.L of Rs. 1,50,000 2,10,738.30 P-39 P-36 9. CC (SC) of Rs. 30,000 28,776.55 - P-25 10. E.P.C F. of Rs. 1,00,000 1,37,551 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff also got executed the deeds of guarantee from Gian Singh who undertook to reimburse the plaintiff in case the money was not paid by the company. From both the documents it is established that Gian Singh is liable to reimburse the plaintiff to the extent of the loans taken by the company in the said accounts. Even if Gian Singh did not execute any deed of guarantee regarding any loan, that does not make any difference as the demand promissory note had been indorsed by him regarding that loan in favour of the plaintiff which is as effective as a deed of guarantee. Consequently, the liability of legal representatives of Gian Singh comes to Rs. 21,87,345.87. Defendant No. 3 is a signatory of the documents which were signed by defendant No. 2 as given in the table above. Therefore, his liability is the same as that of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 4 executed all the documents as given in the table above except promissory note, exhibit P-51, which relates to the medium term loan (1) of Rs. 4,50,000. Consequently, his liability comes to Rs. 20,19,24959. A. D. Aggarwal, deceased, Harnarain Singh, deceased, and defendant No. 7 stood guarantee for repayment of medium term loan (1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest from the company at the rate of 14% per annum on all the accounts. In these circumstances, I consider it proper to grant to the plaintiff future interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum. Mr. Chhibbar brought to my notice two cases, namely, Punjab Supply Corporation v. State Bank of India, Regular Second Appeal No. 2647 of 1983, decided on August 16, 1984, and State Bank of India v. Neeru Plastics [1984] 86 PLR 382 ; AIR 1984 P & H 209. In both the cases, the agreed rate of interest was 18 per cent per annum. Therefore, the ratio in those cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is not necessary to pass a preliminary decree as is required to be done in the case of mortgages as the company has gone into liquidation and it is not possible for the official liquidator to pay the amount. Ultimately, for recovery of the decretal amount, the property mortgaged has to be sold. Consequently, I am passing a final decree. It has already been mentioned above, that an amount of Rs. 93,600 has been paid by the company to the plaintiff. Out of that amount, an amount of Rs. 85,000 has been paid by the company to the plaintiff in the medium t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
