- (1.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and was doing business in chit fund since its incorporation. It went into creditor's voluntary winding-up from December 11, 1979. Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Chanan Lal, deceased father of respondents Nos. 2 and 9 to 12, were its partners. Shri Chanan Lal was also the chairman of the loan committee of the petitioner. He died on December 23, 1980. The petitioner had extended the facility to respondent No. 1 to take loans from it. Consequently, it withdrew a total sum of Rs. 23,39,910 from the petitioner as loan. The loans carried interest at the rate of 12 per cent. to 18 per cent. per annum. An amount of Rs. 1,27,227. 16 was debited to its account on account of interest till March 13, 1978. Respondent No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 5,48,000 towards the principal. Further, a sum of Rs. 13,70,740 was adjusted against the loan account, being its contribution of the various lucky chits of lucky groups held by it. Thus, an amount of Rs. 5,48,397. 16 remained due from respondent No. 1 to the petitioner on March 13, 1978, out of which a sum of Rs. 6,000 was paid by it on July 7, 1978, vide a cheque drawn on the Central Bank of India, Batala. The total interest from March 13, 1978, to December 11, 1979, on the said amount at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum comes to Rs. 1,14,144. Thus, the amount which is now due from respondent No. 1 on December 11, 1979, comes to Rs. 6,56,541. 16 which has not been paid in spite of repeated requests. Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 stood sureties to the extent of Rs. 3,75,000, Rs. 4,00,000, Rs. 30,000, Rs. 90,000 and Rs. 30,000, respectively. Consequently, they are also liable to pay the amounts. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs. 6,56,541. 16 together with future interest be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) THE petition was contested by respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Three written statements were filed--one on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5, second on behalf of respondent No. 3 and the third on behalf of respondent No. 4. It was pleaded by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 that the loans were taken by the answering respondents as individual loans on the basis of pronotes and the same have been returned to the petitioner. It was denied that the respondents took current running loans from it. They also pleaded that the petition was not within limitation. They further raised an objection regarding interest and said that the petitioner was not entitled to any interest. Respondent No, 3 denied his liability to pay any amount to the petitioner. He also denied execution of the receipts, pronotes, etc. Respondent No, 4 in his written statement pleaded that he did not execute any surety bond in favour of the petitioner. The respondents took some other pleas as well. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-1. Whether the petition is barred by limitation ? OPD 2. Whether the petitioner has obtained the sanction of the court for filing the petition ? OPP
(3.) WHETHER the respondents are liable to pay the amount claimed in the petition to the petitioner ? OPP;