9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001, and future interest, also at the rate of 21.5 per cent, per annum. The claim arises out of a loan given by the company in liquidation, namely, Bharatiya Development Finance Ltd., to respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 standing as surety for him. The said loan was given on April 19, 1997. Respondent No. 1 was duly served but has chosen not to contest the claim. Respondent No. 2 was duly served and has contested the claim of the applicant stating that he did not sign at all any of the documents purported to have been signed by him. Respondent No. 2 also stated that the residential address of respondent No. 2 was shown as Shiroda, Taluka Vengurla, but respondent No. 2, who is a laboratory assistant in Vidhya Vikas Adhyapak Vidhya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents produced on behalf of the applicant to support their claim. When document, exhibit E, the salary certificate written in Devanagari was shown to him, he stated that he signed the same for having received the same in Devanagari. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the said signature of respondent No. 2 at point A of exhibit E, does not tally with the signatures in Roman script produced by respondent No. 2. It may be so. However, the fact remains that the said signature at point A of respondent No. 2, in Devanagari as well as the signatures in Roman, on the document produced by respondent No. 2, do not tally with any of the documents produced on behalf of the applicant and referred to herein-above. It was essentially f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was not personally present when the said documents were signed by the surety. In further cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the name of the officer before whom the said documents were signed. Further, he also stated that personally he did not know whether the said Mohan Jadhav had signed the said documents and admitted that he was not acquainted with the signature of respondent No. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant, that the signatures of respondent No. 2 do not tally at points A of the copy of outward school register and the salary certificate, exhibit E, and both these signatures are different from the signatures of respondent No. 2 on documents produced on behalf of the applicant and this shows th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant/official liquidator has only stepped in the shoes of the company in liquidation and had to accept whatever records were available with them and proceed on those basis, in my view, this is not a fit case to award costs in favour of respondent No. 2. As far as the claim against respondent No. 1 is concerned, on the basis of the evidence and documents produced, the same has got to be held as proved against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 therefore, is hereby directed to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 4,876 with pending interest at the rate of 21.5 per cent, and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent., with costs. Learned advocate Ms. Razaq, on behalf of the applicant/official liquidator submits that liberty be grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
