1983 (2) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondent. JUDGMENT Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed Suit No. 960 of 1979 ( State Bank of India v. Depro Foods Ltd. ) for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 70,26,642.42 against the respondent-company in the High Court of Delhi on July 9, 1979. After the institution of the suit, this court ordered the respondent-company to be wound up in C.P. N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... court and was numbered as C.P. No. 69 of 1982. One of the claims in that case (C.P. No. 69 of 1982) is in respect of the payment of seven instalments which had fallen due as guarantee amount, by the petitioner to M/s. Techno Export of Sofia (Bulgaria) from whom necessary plant and equipment were imported by respondent No. 1 for setting up a dehydration factory at Rai, District Sonepat. After .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, as already stated, the claim of the petitioner is not only against respondent No. 1 but also against the directors who became guarantors for repayment of loan. Two of the respondents even mortgaged their properties with the petitioner. It is well settled that where the claim is made against other person .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X