Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2005)BC136
1. Appellants are the defendants 4, 5 and 7 in the OA. Aggrieved by the Order dated 18.9.2003 in OA-364/1996 passed by the DRT, Bangalore, these defendants have preferred the appeal.The 1st respondent, which is the plaintiff filed the Suit before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in OS No. 3330/1989, for a decree against the defendants 1 to 7 for a sum of Rs. 15,27,605.58p. together with future and current interest @ 19.5% per annum towards Cash Credit Hypothecation loan and @ 15.5% p.a. towards the Term Loan from the date of the Suit till realisation and for costs.The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of the 1st defendant Company. Defendants 2 and 3 had availed Cash Credit Hypothecation loan for the 1st defendant, to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs on 25.2.1983 and executed Demand Promissory Note dated 25.2.1983 and also executed letter of lien, set off and also continuing security letter. They have also executed a letter of partnership dated 25.2.1983, in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC194
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2003, passed by the DRT at Bangalore, in OA No. 382/1998, the 6th defendant alone has preferred this appeal, 2. M/s. Movers Ltd., the 1st defendant in the OA, had the benefit of various credit facilities by way of Cash Credit Open Loan, Overdraft against Supply Bills and three Term Loans in respect of which, it had executed Promissory Notes, Letter of Continuity and also Hypothecation Agreements in respect of stocks and trade and machinery and also the letter of acknowledgement of debts. Defendants 2 to 7, who were the Directors of the said company at the relevant point of time stood surety for repayment of the amounts due, for which they have executed letters of continuing guarantee to remain in force till the entire amounts due by the 1st defendant are paid and also acknowledgement of debt and confirmation of balance executed by the 1st defendant, are binding and enforceable against the defendants 2 to 7. That in respect of the loans availed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC196
1. The appellant Bank filed the Original Application No. 162/2000 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,13,254.30p under the Cash Credit Account together with interest @ 19.89% p.a. with quarterly rests from the defendants jointly and severally and by sale of 'A' to 'D' schedule properties. The 1st defendant was the principal borrower and the 2nd defendant was the guarantor. Though the 2nd defendant denied the execution of the guarantee agreement in Exh. A11, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant did execute the guarantee agreement Exh.A11 and rejected the contentions otherwise as contended by the 2nd defendant. But, however, on the question that the 2nd defendant did not execute the guarantee agreement simultaneously when the 1st defendant borrowed the amount and therefore the guarantee agreement (Exh. A11) is not supported by consideration and thereby came to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant, the guarantor is not liable, and dismissed the OA as against the 2nd de...
Tag this Judgment!