Decided on June 21,2005



K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THE 4th defendant in OA No. 8597 1999, on the file of DRT, Bangalore, is the appellant.
(2.) The respondent Bank advanced three types of loan (1) Overdraft Facility, (2) Foreign Discounting of Bills/Foreign Bills of Exchange, and (3) Term Loan, to the Shibumi Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd., who is the respondent in the OA and 2nd respondert in this Appeal. As the company had defaulted in payment, the respondent Bank filed the OA in which defendants 1,2,3 and 5, remained ex pane and 4th defendant namely, the appellant herein, alone contested the matter and the OA was decreed as prayed for against all the defendants including the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred this appeal. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the 1st respondent Bank. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred in this appeal as they have been arrayed in the OA.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the 1st defendant company is a company promoted and owned by the defendants 2, 3 and 5 and the 4th defendant was appointed only as a professional Managing Director of the 1st defendant company for a period of five years by letter dated 9.5.1989. His monthly basic salary was fixed apart from other terms. No doubt, the appellant/4th defendant stood as a surety for the liabilities of the 1st defendant company as required by the respondent company and his liability was only to the extent of Rs. 30 lakhs as per the deed of guarantee executed by him. It is further case of the appellant that he tendered his resignation from the company on 12.11.1990, and the same was accepted by the company. THE appellant also sent a letter to the respondent Bank on 30.11.1990, informing about his resignation and also stated that he will not continue in the services of the company from 1.12.1990 and also requested the Bank of relieve him of the personal guarantee offered by him towards the loan facilities offered to the company. He has also requested written confirmation from the Bank and the said letter was duly acknowledged by the respondent Bank on 4.12.1990 under Ex. D6 and, in fact, the copies of the said letter were sent to the Divisional Manager, Canara Bank and also to other Directors of the Company. It is, therefore, contended that on and from 30.11.1990, the appellant is not at all liable to any extent of the liabilities of the 1st defendant company to the Bank. But, however, the Bank has filed the OA against the company and as against the appellant also.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.