ANIL GOVINDRAO KULKARNI Vs. SANGLI BANK LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No.6 Mr. A. G. Kulkarni, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai in Original Application No. 133 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the Original Application with proportionate costs against the defendant No.1 Standard Fabricators (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ordered the defendant No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,20,60,246/- with future interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the application till realization of the said amount. The learned Presiding Officer also partly allowed the application with proportionate costs against the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 (guarantors) and ordered defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- with future interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests from the date of demand i.e. from 30th June, 2000 till realization of the said amount.
The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the defendant No. 6 the present appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - with future interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests from 30th June, 2000 till realization of the said amount.
(2.) This is a cross-appeal filed by the appellant, which is arising out of the very same order dated 29th August, 2003. The bank was also aggrieved by the very same order and had filed Appeal No. 194 of 2003, which was dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal by its reasoned order on 7th July, 2005.
In that appeal, the bank's contention was that the respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who had guaranteed for the facilities granted to and availed by the defendant No. I, had stood guarantors, not only for cash credit facility of Rs. 4 lacs as apparently appeared from the guarantee deeds, but for more amount, which will be added thereto or shall at any time hereof during the continuance of the guarantee. On the other hand, contention of the respondents in that appeal, who were defendant Nos. 2 to 6 was that they had given their guarantees for payment up to, but not exceeding in the aggregate the total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of principal, interest and other charges, becoming due thereon. It was therefore contended by the respondents that liability of the respondents was restricted to only Rs. 4 lacs in aggregate and not beyond that. This contention of the respondents was allowed and the appeal filed by the bank was dismissed.
(3.) MR. Nitin Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/defendant No.6 MR. A. G. Kulkarni, submitted that the learned Presiding Officer was not correct in holding the defendant No.6 separately liable to pay Rs. 4 lacs with future interest, etc., that liability of the guarantors were joint and several and therefore it ought to have been held that the defendant No.6 was liable joint and severally along with defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs for cash credit facility only. On this ground, prayer was made by the appellant that Clause 5 of the operative portion of the order be modified to that extent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.