Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : 3(2006)BC140
..... if the appellant feels that co-defendants are doing something, which is detrimental to his interest as a guarantor, then he may put up that as his defence or for praying his discharge if his case is covered by the relevant provisions of the indian contract act making out circumstances in which the guarantor is discharged. ..... 5/appellant herein, cannot be said to be erroneous for the reasons given below: preamble of the rddbfi act, 1993 states that this act has been enacted to provide for the establishment of tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. ..... i have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned presiding officer was right in rejecting the said application made by the appellant praying for injunction against the co-defendants in the original application filed by the bank against all the defendants for recovery of applicant bank's dues from these defendants.3. ..... the appellant can certainly point out this at the time of final hearing of the original application, but he cannot use this forum to ventilate his grievance against the co-defendants against whom the bank is claiming its dues.in view of the aforesaid discussion, i do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. ..... 51 of 2003 under section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the rddbfi act against the defendant nos. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2007)BC183
..... money decree being both personal against all the defendants including the guarantor as well as mortgage decree without limitation on execution, then the decree holder cannot be forced to first exhaust remedy by way of execution of mortgage decree alone and then to proceed against guarantor.in view of the above provisions of law incorporated in section 128 of the indian contract act, 1872 and reiterated by the supreme court in the case of bank of bihar and state bank of india (supra), the learned presiding officer was not correct in ..... giving direction to the banks that they should first proceed against only the ..... 3 were allowed.it is only a consequential direction, which is given by the learned presiding officer contained in clause (b) of the operative portion of the order, which is erroneous.the appellant banks' grievance has to be examined vis-a-vis the direction given by the learned presiding officer in the above mentioned clause (b) in the light of section 128 of the indian contract act, which says as follows: 128. .....
Tag this Judgment!