9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recovery of loan amount from guarantor, Execution of guarantee deed, Continuing guarantee, Equitable mortgage, Barred by limitation, One time settlement scheme Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in a Civil Suit regarding the recovery of a loan amount. The suit was filed by a Nationalised Bank against borrowers and a guarantor. The guarantor had executed a guarantee-deed in favor of the Bank, which was a continuing guarantee until the repayment of the entire outstanding dues. The Bank alleged poor maintenance of the account by the borrowers, leading to accumulated dues. Despite executing guarantee documents, the outstanding dues were not paid, resulting in the Bank filing the suit for recovery of the amount. The trial Court proceeded ex parte against the borrowers, while the guarantor appeared and denied giving the guarantee for the loan. Evidence was presented by Bank officials proving the execution of loan documents by the borrowers and the guarantee deed by the guarantor. The Court found that the borrowers had taken the loan and the guarantor had executed a continuing guarantee, including mortgaging his property by way of equitable mortgage. The judgment upheld the trial Court's decree based on the evidence presented. Regarding the limitation argument raised by the appellant's counsel, the Court found it to be without merit. Since the suit was based on documents of continuing guarantee and equitable mortgage, it was held to be within the limitation period of 12 years. The appellant's counsel requested consideration under a one-time settlement scheme by the Reserve Bank of India. The Court directed the respondent Bank to extend the time for the appellant to submit the application for one-time settlement and consider the case sympathetically under the scheme, provided the appellant approached the Bank within the specified timeline. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Court directed the Bank to consider the appellant's case for one-time settlement if approached within the specified timeframe, emphasizing that the Bank should decide the case independently of the Court's judgment and pass appropriate orders.
|
