2001 (3) TMI 1054 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the suit despite proceedings before the B.I.F.R.
- Validity of guarantees obtained by coercion.
- Admissibility of documents of guarantee for attachment before judgment.
- Direction for disclosure of assets by defendants.

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The plaintiffs filed suits for recovery of loans against the defendants, who had executed personal guarantees. The defendants argued that proceedings should be stayed due to one company being before the B.I.F.R. The Court held that even if proceedings related to the B.I.F.R. company could not continue, recovery against other entities could proceed since substantial amounts were involved. The Court asserted its jurisdiction to consider the suits for recovery.

Validity of Guarantees Obtained by Coercion:
The defendants claimed that guarantees were obtained by coercion, citing declarations made in 1996 but brought up only in 1998. The Court found this claim to be an afterthought and not credible, especially since no prior complaints were made. The Court rejected the coercion argument and proceeded with the case.

Admissibility of Documents for Attachment:
The defendants argued that the guarantee documents were not properly stamped, making them inadmissible. The Court ruled that at the interim stage, the documents could be relied upon for seeking interim relief. The issue of stamp duty could be addressed later during the evidence stage, and interim relief could not be denied based on stamping concerns.

Direction for Disclosure of Assets:
The defendants opposed disclosing their assets, arguing that Order 38 did not provide for such directions. However, the Court noted that Order 38 allowed for directions to ensure adequate security for the plaintiff. The Court held that it had the power to direct the defendants to disclose their assets, enabling attachment before judgment.

In the final order, the Court directed the defendants to provide security or disclose assets within a specified period. Failure to comply would result in attachment of specified properties. The Court disposed of the notices of motion, emphasizing the need for compliance with the order and expediting the certified copy for all parties involved.