9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the defendants for the loan amount. 2. Whether the loan was borrowed by P.L. Jaitly in his personal capacity or on behalf of P.L. Jaitly and Co. as Managing Agents of the L.G.J.E.D. Co. 3. Liability of the L.G.J.E.D. Co. for the loan. 4. Liability of P.L. Jaitly's sons for the loan. 5. Order for the sale of pledged shares. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of the Defendants for the Loan Amount: The suit was filed to recover Rs. 38,474-7-4 from various defendants, with a request to sell certain pledged shares. The Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit against P.L. Jaitly's brothers and the sons of Kesri Narain, limiting their liability to the joint family property. The suit was dismissed against other defendants, including two of P.L. Jaitly's sons and the L.G.J.E.D. Co. 2. Whether the Loan was Borrowed by P.L. Jaitly in his Personal Capacity or on Behalf of P.L. Jaitly and Co. as Managing Agents of the L.G.J.E.D. Co.: The suit was based on a promissory note executed by P.L. Jaitly, who borrowed Rs. 35,000. The plaint stated that the money was borrowed for the L.G.J.E.D. Co., but also on the personal responsibility of P.L. Jaitly. The Additional Civil Judge found that P.L. Jaitly acted as the manager of the joint Hindu family, making the entire family liable. However, he did not find sufficient evidence that the loan was borrowed on behalf of the L.G.J.E.D. Co. 3. Liability of the L.G.J.E.D. Co. for the Loan: The L.G.J.E.D. Co. denied liability, claiming the money was advanced to P.L. Jaitly personally. The Additional Civil Judge pointed out that the promissory note did not indicate it was executed on behalf of the company. Despite the company benefiting from the loan, the judge held that the company was not liable, as the promissory note did not bind the company under Section 89 of the Indian Companies Act. The appeal argued that the company should be liable due to the benefit received, but the court did not accept this, emphasizing that the loan appeared to be made to Jaitly personally. 4. Liability of P.L. Jaitly's Sons for the Loan: The Additional Civil Judge noted that the Official Assignee could seize the entire share of P.L. Jaitly and his sons in the joint family property. The court assumed this had been done, thus dismissing the suit against the sons. However, the appeal contended that a decree should be passed against P.L. Jaitly's sons. The court agreed that the sons could be held liable to the extent of their share in the family property, as P.L. Jaitly was represented by the Official Assignee. 5. Order for the Sale of Pledged Shares: The appeal contested the order for the sale of shares, arguing that under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, the pawnee should dispose of the security. However, since no cross-objection was filed, the court did not entertain this objection. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, except for respondents Nos. 5 and 6, who were also made liable to the extent of the joint family property in their hands. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in both courts.
|
