9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in relation to the enforcement of a guarantee in a loan case. Analysis: 1. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum against the defendants, seeking a personal decree and costs. An interlocutory application was filed to issue notice to the petitioners to furnish security for the suit amount and attach properties if security was not provided. 2. The Principal Subordinate Judge allowed the interlocutory application, ordering attachment before judgment as the petitioners failed to furnish security as directed by the court. The petitioners challenged this order through a civil revision petition. 3. The petitioners argued citing a judgment of the Apex Court regarding section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, stating that no suit for the enforcement of a guarantee in respect of a loan can proceed without consent from the Board or Appellate Authority under the Act. 4. The petitioners contended that the first defendant, a sick company, had defendant Nos. 2 and 3 execute a pronote in favor of the plaintiff, creating a legal bar under the Act. They sought to set aside the lower court's order based on this argument. 5. The respondent countered that the petitioners executed the pronote in their individual capacity, making them personally liable for the amount due, as they are not acting solely on behalf of the sick company. They argued that the petitioners have personal assets to offer as security. 6. The court examined the pronote's contents, finding that the petitioners borrowed the amount jointly and severally for themselves and on behalf of the company. The court concluded that the petitioners borrowed the amount for their personal benefit, not solely for the company, and thus, the Act's provisions did not apply. 7. The court upheld the lower court's decision, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to the Act's benefits or the judgment cited. The court found no legal infirmity in the lower court's order and dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the fair and decretal order for attachment before judgment. 8. The court ruled that there would be no order as to costs in the case. Consequently, the proceedings were closed. This detailed analysis covers the interpretation of the legal provisions, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the final judgment.
|
