9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the court was legally justified in dismissing the suit against defendants Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The extent of the amount to be adjusted in respect of goods pledged with the bank by defendant No. 1. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of Suit Against Defendants Nos. 3 and 4: The court examined whether defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who had stood as guarantors for the loan taken by the defendant-company, were discharged from their liability due to a change in the company's management. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 executed an agreement of guarantee on August 1, 1977, and a supplementary agreement on August 7, 1978. The terms of the guarantee included clauses that emphasized the continuous nature of the guarantee, stating that the guarantors would not be discharged by any change in the terms of the contract or management of the company. The court noted that the company, being a juristic person under the Companies Act, 1956, continues to exist regardless of changes in its management. The agreement did not contain any clause that discharged the guarantors upon a change in management. Furthermore, Section 130 of the Contract Act, which allows for the revocation of a continuing guarantee by notice, was not applicable as the guarantors did not provide any notice to the bank to discharge their liability. Consequently, the court concluded that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 remained liable under the terms of the guarantee despite the change in management. 2. Adjustment of Amount in Respect of Pledged Goods: The second issue pertained to the extent of the amount to be adjusted for the goods pledged with the bank by defendant No. 1. The bank, as a bailee, was responsible for taking care of the pledged goods with the same prudence as an owner. The bank argued that some goods were lost, stolen, or damaged during the period they were under the control of the court-appointed receiver, and thus, the bank should not suffer for such losses. However, the court noted that the bank failed to provide specific evidence regarding the quantity and quality of the goods at various stages, including at the time of filing the suit and when the receiver took charge. The court emphasized that the bank, as a bailee, was required to prove that it took all possible care of the goods. The receiver's report did not specify the quality and quantity of goods taken under custody, and there was no evidence to show that the bank took necessary actions against the receiver for any mismanagement. Therefore, the court held that the bank was entitled to recover the loan amount only after adjusting the value of the pledged goods. The court directed the lower court to determine the value of the pledged goods and adjust this amount against the recovery from the defendants. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment dated May 31, 1993, was modified. The suit was decreed against defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and the court was directed to determine the value of the pledged goods to be adjusted against the recovery amount. The lower court was instructed to record its findings and pass an appropriate decree within six months. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
|
