9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Rs. 49,98,480 was drawn by the first defendant and was duly accepted by the second defendant payable to the plaintiff 90 days after date. The plaintiff is also the holder in due course of another Bill of Exchange dated 14-10-1997, in the amount of Rs. 61,48,920 drawn by the first defendant and accepted by the second defendant which was payable to the plaintiff 90 days after date. Similarly, a third Bill of Exchange dated 22-10-1997, in the amount of Rs. 80,24,600 drawn by the first defendant and accepted by the second defendant was payable to the plaintiff 90 days after date. The three Bills of Exchange as aforesaid were due for payment on 1-1-1998, 12-1-1998 and 25-1-1998. The plaintiff has averred in para 6 of the plaint that the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 13-10-1997. But, the said cheque was also returned as dishonoured upon presentation. On 7-3-1998, the second defendant paid an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs against the said Bill of Exchange, leaving as balance a sum of Rs. 36,48,920. By letters dated 24-3-1998 and 18-4-1998, the second defendant assured that a payment schedule would be worked out to pay the outstanding dues of the plaintiff. 3. In so far as the second defendant is concerned, it has been stated that on the letter of the plaintiff dated 8-12-1998, the second defendant had by an endorsement confirmed that an amount of Rs. 1,51,25,844 was due and payable to the plaintiff. 4. In para 24 of the plaint, the claim for interest insofar as the first defendant is concerned, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the first defendant. The liability of the first defendant as a drawer cannot be disputed by virtue of the provisions of section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 30 postulates that the drawer of a Bill of Exchange is bound, in case of dishonour by the drawee or acceptor thereof to compensate the holder, provided due notice of dishonour has been given to, or received by, the drawer. The fact that the notice of dishonour has been issued to the first defendant is again not disputed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first defendant, however, submitted that under section 37 of the Act, the drawer of the Bill of Exchange is the principal debtor only until acceptance of the bill, after which and upon acceptance, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. Having given my anxious consideration to this submission, I do not see any substance therein. Section 22 provides for a number of consequences where in respect of an industrial company, proceedings under the Act of the nature referred to in the initial part of section 22 are pending. These proceedings would include an enquiry under section 16, the preparation of a scheme under section 17, a sanctioned scheme being under implementa-tion, or an appeal being pending under section 25. If any of these proceedings is pending, then, the following consequences would ensue : ( 1 ) no proceedings for the winding up of the industrial company; ( 2 ) no proceedings for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of a guarantee in respect of a loan granted to a company in respect of which a reference under the Act or an appeal is pending, would, therefore, clearly attract the provision of section 22. In the case, which was decided by the Supreme Court, a suit for the recovery of loans which were advanced to be industrial company was filed and the guarantors were impleaded since their guarantee was sought to be enforced. In para 13 of its judgment, the Supreme Court noted that as of the date of the judgment of the Court, an appeal by the industrial company was pending under the Act before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that section 22 would be attracted in such a case. The Court held as follows : ". . . Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sages in paras 7, 12 and 13 that the suit for the enforcement of the guarantee has to be in respect of a loan granted to a sick industrial company in order to attract section 22. Where no loans or advances are granted to a sick industrial company, then the suit for the enforcement of the obligation, as in the present case, of the drawer of a Bill of Exchange is not hit by the provisions of section 22. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid situation, I am of the view that there is absolutely no substance in the defence urged on behalf of the first defendant. The first defendant is liable on the Bill of Exchange under section 30 as the drawer thereunder. The summons for judgment is liable to be made absolute and the plaintiff would be entitl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
