DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
M.C. Jain, J. (Chairman) -
(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated April 12, 2004, passed by the Tribunal below dismissing the application made by him purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC read with Section 22(1)(e) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, for impleadment of M/s. Satnam group as a defendant in O.A. No. 236 of 2001 in question. None has appeared for the respondents in the appeal.
A few facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are recorded. The O.A. in question has been filed by respondent No. 1 herein (IDBI) against M/s. Sterling Flatware Ltd., defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 herein (principal borrower), Mr. P.K. Gupta, defendant No. 2/appellant herein (guarantor), IFCI Ltd., defendant No. 3/respondent No. 3 and ICICI Ltd., defendant No. 4/respondent No. 4 for the recovery of Rs. 11 crores and odd. The appellant herein/defendant No. 2 was the guarantor for the repayment of loan. Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 created first charge by way of joint mortgage in favour of the applicant/first respondent and defendants Nos. 3 and 4/respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively on its immovable properties. Since financial discipline was not maintained, the O.A. came to be filed by the IDBI/respondent No. 1 herein. The appellant/defendant No. 2 entered appearance before the Tribunal below and also filed his written statement, contending that with effect from October 29, 1996, the management, shareholdings, assets and liabilities of defendant No. 1 -M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd., had been transferred to Satnam group of companies promoted by Mr. Gurnam Arora. According to him, from the date of transfer of management, the appellant/defendant No. 2 had relinquished his shareholding in favour of Satnam group of companies and ceased to have any association with M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd.
(2.) HE made an application to implead M/s. Satnam group of companies through Mr. Gurnam Arora which was opposed by the IDBI (applicant in O.A.). A written reply was also filed. The application did not find favour with the Tribunal below. Aggrieved, the appellant/defendant No. 2 (guarantor) has filed this appeal.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. He has argued that the share capital of the original borrower M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd., having been transferred to the Satnam group of companies managed and controlled by Mr. Gurnam Arora, the said company through him was a necessary party and should have been impleaded for proper and effective decision of the O.A. He has tried to support his argument by the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge Gorakhpur .
On consideration of the matter, I am firmly of the view that even though none has appeared from the side of the respondents in the appeal, the appeal is devoid of substance and is bound to be dismissed. I wish to make a little discussion spelling out reasons for this view of mine. It is to be pointed out that the original borrower M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd., is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a legal entity. The appellant/defendant No. 2 is the main architect as being the original promoter of the said company as well as the guarantor for the repayment of the loan in question. His contention is that he cannot be liable for any alleged dues of M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd., as the said company transferred its shareholding to the Satnam group of companies on October 29,1996. According to him, he stood discharged of the liabilities of defendant No. 1.
The contention of the appellant/defendant No. 2 is wholly untenable and unsustainable at law, he being the guarantor. As a guarantor, his liability is to be governed by Chapter VIII of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is further to be pointed out that the liability of the surety is co -extensive with that of the principal debtor as per Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it is provided otherwise by a contract. So far as the mortgage is concerned, the liability of the mortgagor is regulated as per provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The loan having been advanced to a company incorporated under the Companies Act, it is of no consequence that shareholding allegedly came to be transferred to someone else. There is not the slightest doubt that defendant No. 2 who is the original promoter of M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd. (principal borrower) and who is also a guarantor, has, by making an application for the impleadment of Satnam group of companies as a party, tried to complicate beyond recognition the subject -matter awaiting adjudication in the O.A. He is fumbling for an escape route. He hit upon this novel idea with a purpose to gain mileage at a subsequent convenient stage by embarking on some enigma of technical shade to dilute the central issue of his liability, laughing way back home.
(3.) I have no hesitation in saying that his making the application for impleadment of Satnam group of companies is a gross misuse of judicial process to complicate the issue and delay its adjudication. Any private arrangement with third party, as alleged by him but admittedly without the knowledge and consent of the lender (applicant in O.A.) cannot be enforced. No document could be produced by him to prove the relevance or necessity of joining the said third party in the O.A. As pointed out earlier, financial assistance was granted by the applicant in O.A. to M/s. Sterling Flatwares Ltd., due repayment of which was duly guaranteed by the appellant/defendant No. 2, Mr. P.K. Gupta in his personal capacity. The lender rightly impleaded the principal borrower and the guarantor (appellant/defendant No. 2) in the O.A. Indeed, the applicant IDBI had no privity with the said Satnam group of companies.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.