2005 (9) TMI 319 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking release from liability under section 633 of the Companies Act.
2. Petitioner's role as director and guarantor in the company.
3. Loan repayment default by the company to the bank.
4. Decree by Debts Recovery Tribunal against the company.
5. Petitioner's attempt to escape guarantor liability through the court petition.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief under section 633 of the Companies Act, requesting release from liability and the return of the invested amount in shares. The court noted the petitioner's status as a director and guarantor for a loan taken by the respondent-company from a bank. The petition was filed to avoid guarantor liability after the company failed to repay the loan, leading to a decree by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

2. The court highlighted that the petitioner's attempt to evade guarantor responsibility through the court petition was not considered bona fide. It was emphasized that if the petitioner believed the decree was not enforceable against him or sought relief from his guarantor status, such objections should be raised in the appropriate execution proceedings rather than through the company petition.

3. The judgment emphasized that the objections raised by the petitioner did not fall within the scope of section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court dismissed the company petition, indicating that the petitioner's claims to escape liability as a guarantor were not valid grounds for relief under the mentioned section.

4. Ultimately, the court ruled against the petitioner, stating that the company petition failed to provide sufficient legal basis for releasing the petitioner from liability as a guarantor. The dismissal of the petition signified that the petitioner's efforts to avoid guarantor obligations through the court were not justified under the Companies Act.

5. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of addressing guarantor liabilities through appropriate legal channels and execution proceedings rather than attempting to circumvent such responsibilities through company petitions. The decision to dismiss the petition highlighted the court's adherence to legal principles and the limited scope of relief available under section 633 of the Companies Act in such circumstances.