TAMIL NADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD Vs. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS regular appeal has been filed as against the order dated 23rd September, 2005 passed in Original Application No. 648 of 1999 by D.R.T.-I, Chennai.
(2.) The" Original Application filed by the appellant for the recovery of the amounts was decreed as prayed for. But, however, it was held that, the responsibility of the defendant No. 6, being a guarantor, was only to the extent of the value of the portion/share of the schedule mortgage property in his possession, and he is not personally liable, and the said finding is under challenge in this appeal.
I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent.
The defendant No. 1-company is a partnership firm represented by its partners defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and they have availed certain loan facilities from the appellant Bank, for which defendant Nos. 4 to 6 stood as guarantors and they have executed personal guarantee in favour of the applicant Bank, and they have also executed mortgage extension letter by creating a valid equitable mortgage in favour of the appellant Bank in respect of the properties set out in the schedule to the Original Application. Based upon the relevant documents, Original Application was filed.
(3.) THE defendant No. 6 resisted the claim by contending that the defendant No. 1-firm was reconstituted on 25th September, 1998 and there was a change in the contract of guarantee, by which the defendant Nos. 7 and 8 also became the partners of the defendant No. 1-company, and in view of the change in the constitution of the defendant No. 1 -company, he was not liable. But, however, he had stated that if at all he is liable, his liability is restricted only to his share in the item No. 1 of the property set out in the schedule to the Original Application.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.