9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the suit subject to:- (i) The Defendants jointly and/or severally depositing in this Court the sum of ₹ 3.22 Crores within a period of Twelve weeks from today; (ii) If the aforesaid deposit is made, the Suit shall get transferred to the list of Commercial Causes and the Defendants shall file their Written Statement within a period of eight weeks from the date of deposit; and (iii) If the order of deposit is not complied with within the stipulated period as mentioned earlier, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to apply for an ex-parte decree against the Defendants after obtaining a non-deposit certificate from the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. Summons for Judgement disposed off. - Summons for Judgment No. 221 of 2010 in Commercial Suit No. 44 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2017 - B.P. Colabawalla, J. For the Appellant : Sharan Jagtiani and Suyash Gadre I/b Utangale and Co. For the Respondents : Tushar Goradia and Kausar Banatwala JUDGMENT B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. This Summons for Judgment has been filed seeking a judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally to pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of ₹ 3,22,25,615/- as per par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23% p.a. To further secure this loan, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 duly executed two separate Deeds of Guarantee both dated 17th December, 2008, under which the Defendants duly guaranteed the repayment of the dues of the principal borrower to the Plaintiff. 6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that even though the principal borrower had agreed to secure the said term loan of ₹ 4 Crores by way of a mortgage of all the assets of the principal borrower, however, the principal borrower failed to execute the same and the Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit have security only in the form of a pledge of shares, which according to the Plaintiff, is not sufficient to recover its entire dues. In other words, it has been averred in the plaint that the pledged securities available to the Plaintiff are insufficient insofar as the claim of the Plaintiff against the principal borrower is concerned. The Plaintiff has therefore pleaded that the principal borrower had given a post-dated cheque of ₹ 4 Crores for repayment of the said term loan. However, upon presentation of the said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the principal borrower for the reason insufficient funds . Subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntee executed by the Defendants are insufficiently stamped, and therefore, cannot be looked at for any purpose whatsoever much less for passing a decree or even an conditional order of deposit as contemplated under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC ). 10. In the additional affidavit of the Defendants it is stated that after coming into the force of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC, 2016 or the Code ), one Coburg Print and Pack had filed proceedings under the said Code before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short NCLT ), Ahmedabad Bench against the principal borrower. By an order dated 5th October, 2017, the NCLT has admitted the Petition under Section 9(1) of the Code and has appointed one Mr. Navnitlal Bhatia as the interim Insolvency Resolution Professional ( IRP ) under Section 13(1)(c) of the Code with effect from 6th October, 2017. It has been further brought on record that by the order dated 5th October, 2017, the Adjudicating Authority (namely the NCLT) has ordered a moratorium as contemplated under Section 14 and has prohibited institution of suits or continuation of the pending suits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word bank , banking company corresponding the new bank , financial institution and subsidiary bank . He submitted that the Plaintiff does not fall within any of these definitions so as to invest the Debts Recovery Tribunal with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim made by the Plaintiff in the present suit. I fully agree with the submissions of Mr. Jagtiani and therefore do not find that there is any substance in this argument canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants. The DRT under the RDB Act, 1993 is invested with jurisdiction to only entertain proceedings filed by Banks and Financial Institutions for recovery of their dues as well as proceedings for Insolvency of individuals as contemplated in PART III of the IBC, 2016. Proceedings for Insolvency of individuals can be filed by any person, even other than a Bank or a Financial Institution. This is clear from sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act, 1993 which read as under:- 17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.-(1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce is also without any merit. As correctly submitted by Mr. Jagtiani, the summary procedure can be invoked by a party under Order XXXVII of the CPC as more particularly set out in Rule (1) sub-rule (2) thereof. Order XXXVII Rule (1) sub-rule (2) stipulates that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), this Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely (a) suits upon bills of exchange, hundies and promissory notes; and (b) suits in which the Plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the Defendant, with or without interest arising (i) on a written contract; or (ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or (iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. He submitted that admittedly in the facts of the present case, the suit is based on the guarantees executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which is in respect of a debt granted by the Plaintiff to the principal borrower. There is no stipulation under Order XXXVII that the suit would not be maintainable as a Summary Suit because a security is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 30, 31, 60, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 179, 231, 238 and 243. Taking me through these provisions (and to which I shall advert to in greater detail later), Mr. Cama as well as Mr. Jagtiani both submitted before me that the scheme of the Code is such that there is no question of granting any protection or benefit to a third party and who is not before the Adjudicating Authority in insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings. In this regard, both counsel placed heavy reliance on the words of Section 14 which clearly states that subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order, declare a moratorium for prohibiting all of the following namely, (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law, Tribunal, Arbitration Panel or other Authority. What was brought to my notice was also the definition of the word corporate debtor which has been defined in Section 3 (8) of the IBC, 2016 to mean a corporate person who owes a debt to any person. In turn, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than limited liability partnerships) as well as individuals. They submitted that only when a guarantor invokes the provisions as more particularly set out in Part III and follows the procedure laid down therein, that the guarantor would be entitled to the protection of a moratorium. However, that protection can be granted only in its own proceedings and as more particularly set out in Part III of the IBC, 2016. In this regard, it was brought to my attention that under section 94, a debtor who commits a default may apply personally or through a resolution professional to the Adjudicating Authority for initiating the insolvency resolution process by submitting an application. Similarly, under Section 95, a creditor may apply either by himself, or jointly with other creditors, or through a resolution professional to the Adjudicating Authority for initiating an insolvency resolution process by submitting an application. Section 96 provides for interim moratorium and states that when an application is filed under Sections 94 or 95, then an interim moratorium shall commence on the date of the application in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect on the date of admissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e existing framework was inadequate, that the present Code was brought into force, was the submission. Mr. Jagtiani and Mr. Cama both submitted that the Legislature, while drafting this Code, was very much aware of the provisions of SICA, 1985 and more particularly Section 22 thereof which categorically gave a limited protection to the guarantor. This limited protection is conspicuously absent from section 14 of the IBC, 2016 was the submission. This being the case, Mr. Jagtiani and Mr. Cama both submitted that this is yet another factor which would clearly go to establish that the guarantor would not get any protection or benefit under an order of moratorium that has been passed in favour of the corporate debtor under section 14 of the IBC, 2016. 20. On the other hand, Mr. Goradia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants, placed reliance on Sections 30, 31 and 60 of the IBC, 2016 to contend that the protection that is accorded to the corporate debtor shall also enure to the benefit of the guarantor. He submitted that Section 30 deals with Submission of a Resolution Plan and states that the Resolution Applicant may submit a Resolution Plan to the Resolution Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the NCLT having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located. He submitted that sub-section 2 of Section 60 stipulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code, where a corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceedings of a corporate debtor are pending before the NCLT, an application relating to the insolvency resolution or bankruptcy of a personal guarantor of such corporate debtor shall be filed before such NCLT. Looking to this provision, Mr. Goradia submitted that this clearly shows that the order of moratorium that is passed pending the formulation of the Resolution Plan clearly enures to the benefit of the guarantor as well. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Goradia submitted that the present suit against the guarantors ought to be stayed in view of the order passed by the NCLT dated 5th October, 2017 and liberty may be granted to the parties to apply once any further orders are passed by the NCLT in that regard. In support of this proposition Mr. Goradia also relied upon a decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also improve ease of doing business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development. In a nutshell, the Code sought to achieve the above objectives and it was in this light that the IBC, 2016 was brought in the force. 25. For the sake of completeness, I must also refer to the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Government found the ill effects of sickness in industrial companies such as loss of production, loss of employment, loss of revenue to the Central and State Governments and locking up of investible funds of financial institutions as a serious concern to the Government and the society at large. There was also an increase in the incidences of sickness in industrial companies. In order to fully utilize the productive industrial assets, afford maximum protection of employment and optimize the use of the funds of banks and financial institutions, the Government felt that it would be imperative to revive and rehabilitate the potentially viable sick industrial companies as quickly as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... too short of the expectations. Consequently, the Committee recommended that SICA, 1985 should be repealed and the provisions contained therein for revival and rehabilitation, should be telescoped into the structure of the Companies Act, 1956 itself. A detailed analysis of the Eradi Committee report can be found in a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Salem Textiles Limited v. M/s. Phoenix ARC Private Ltd. Ors reported in MANU/TN/0261/2011 27. The only reason why I am referring to the report of the Eradi Committee is because it throws light on how SICA, 1985, despite its laudable objects, has, at least in spirit, failed to achieve the purpose for which it was enacted. Though the Eradi Committee had recommended that SICA, 1985 should be repealed and the provisions contained therein for revival and rehabilitation, should be telescoped into the structure of the Companies Act, 1956, the same never took place. Now, of course, the Legislature has enacted IBC, 2016 which comprehensively deals with the revival as well as liquidation not only of corporate persons but also of individuals and partnership firms. 28. Having said this, I shall now advert to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kruptcy as the case may be. 31. By virtue of the Ordinance, section 2 has been amended. Clause (d) of section 2 has been amended clause (e) of section 2 has been substituted. Further, Clauses (f) (g) have been added to section 2. The relevant portion of the Ordinance reads thus:- In the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2,- (i) in clause (d), the word and shall be omitted; (ii) for clause (e), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:- (e) personal guarantors to corporate debtors; (f) partnership firms and proprietorship firms; and (g) individuals, other than persons referred to in clause (e), . 32. On a plain reading of this section, even after the Ordinance, it is clear that the provisions of this Code shall apply to the aforesaid persons as mentioned therein only in relation to their insolvency, liquidation, voluntary liquidation or bankruptcy as the case may be, and not otherwise. In other words, this Code has no application when a party has not invoked the provisions thereof. This is of course subject to any provision in the Act which may specifically refer to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, specify the minimum amount of default of higher value which shall not be more than one crore rupees. 37. What is ex-facie clear from this provision is that Part II of the Code applies to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees. Part II does not apply to insolvency of individuals who are guarantors of the Corporate Debtor. They are governed by Part III. The only exception to this is that if an individual is a guarantor to a corporate debtor then for the purposes of insolvency/bankruptcy of such guarantor, the Adjudicating Authority would be the NCLT and not the DRT. However, the insolvency/bankruptcy procedure to be followed for such guarantor would still be governed by Part III and not Part II of the Code (see section 60 of the Code). 38. Part II of the IBC, 2016 itself has a definitions section namely, Section 5. Sections 5(5), 5(7), 5(8), 5(10), 5(12), 5(20), 5(21), 5(22), 5(25) and 5(26) are relevant for our purpose and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitiating corporate insolvency resolution process by the Adjudicating Authority under Sections 7, 9 or Section 10, as the case may be; (20) operational creditor means a person to whom an operational debt is owed and includes any person to whom such debt has been legally assigned or transferred; (21) operational debt means a claim in respect of the provision of goods or services including employment or a debt in respect of the repayment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and payable to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority; (22) personal guarantor means an individual who is the surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor; (25) resolution applicant means any person who submits a resolution plan to the resolution professional; (26) resolution plan means a plan proposed by any person for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor as a going concern in accordance with Part II; 39. I must mention here that the definitions of the words resolution applicant and resolution plan have been substituted by the Ordinance. The relevant portion of the Ordinance reads thus:- In section 5 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to the definition of the word resolution plan to mean a plan proposed by a resolution applicant for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor as a going concern in accordance with Part II of the Code. 41. Chapter II of Part II of the IBC, 2016 deals with the corporate insolvency resolution process and consists of Sections 6 to 32. Section 6 provides as to the persons who may initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process. They are either a financial creditor or an operational creditor or the corporate debtor itself. Section 7 deals with initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by a financial creditor. Sections 8 and 9 deal with Insolvency resolution by an operational creditor and Section 10 deals with initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by a corporate applicant. As set out earlier, corporate applicant has been defined in Section 5(5) to mean (a) the corporate debtor; or (b) a member or partner of the corporate debtor who is authorised to make an application for the corporate insolvency resolution process under the constitutional document of the corporate debtor; or (c) an individual who is in charge of managing the operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after admission of the application under section 7 or section 9 or section 10 shall by an order (a) declare a moratorium for the purposes referred to in section 14; (b) cause a public announcement of the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process and call for submission of claims under section 15; and also (c) appoint an interim resolution professional in the manner as laid down in section 16. When the public announcement has to be made is also set out in Section 13(2) which is immediately after the appointment of the interim resolution professional. 45. Section 14, and which is the crux of the matter, deals with moratorium and reads as follows:- 14. Moratorium.- (1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely- (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate debtor. 47. What is important to note is that the moratorium under section 14 applies only to the corporate debtor . This is clear from a plain reading of the language of Section 14. What is prohibited under Section 14(1)(a) is the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law, Tribunal, Arbitration Panel or other Authority. Under section 14(1)(b), a corporate debtor is prohibited from transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein. Section 14(1)(c) prohibits any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; and Section 14(1)(d) prohibits the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor, where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. 48. Section 14 is as clear as it can be. On reading Section 14, it is clear that the benefits as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process under this section by submitting an application. (2) A creditor may apply under sub-section (1) in relation to any partnership debt owed to him for initiating an insolvency resolution process against- (a) any one or more partners of the firm; or (b) the firm. (3) Where an application has been made against one partner in a firm, any other application against another partner in the same firm shall be presented in or transferred to the Adjudicating Authority in which the first mentioned application is pending for adjudication and such Adjudicating Authority may give such directions for consolidating the proceedings under the applications as it thinks just. (4) An application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied with details and documents relating to- (a) the debts owed by the debtor to the creditor or creditors submitting the application for insolvency resolution process as on the date of application; (b) the failure by the debtor to pay the debt within a period of fourteen days of the service of the notice of demand; and (c) relevant evidence of such default or non-repayment of debt. (5) The creditor shall also provide a copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the firm as on the date of the application. 51. Thereafter, Section 100 deals with admission or rejection of the application filed either under Sections 94 or 95. Section 100 stipulates that the Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days from the date of submission of the report under section 99 pass an order either admitting or rejecting the application referred to in section 94 or 95, as the case may be. If the application is admitted under Section 100, then Section 101 provides that a moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one hundred and eighty days beginning with the date of admission of the application or on the date the Adjudicating Authority passes an order on the repayment plan under Section 114, whichever is earlier. The moratorium as contemplated under Section 101 also prohibits (during the moratorium period) inter alia any continuation of pending proceedings in respect of any debt and further bars the creditors from initiating any legal action or legal proceedings in respect of any debt. During the moratorium period, the debtor is also prohibited from transferring, alienating, enc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a limited protection to the guarantor. Despite repealing the provisions of SICA, 1985 on 1st December, 2016 and bringing into force Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 (which deals with moratorium), the Legislature did not think it fit to grant any such protection, limited or otherwise, to the guarantor. This is another factor (apart from the clear language of Section 14) which clearly goes to show that the benefits granted to the corporate debtor under Section 14 (during the moratorium period), does not enure to the benefit of the guarantor. To my mind, therefore, I find considerable force in the argument canvassed by Mr. Cama (Amicus Curiae) as well as Mr. Jagtiani, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, that Section 14 does not enure to the benefit of the guarantor, and therefore, there is no question of staying the present suit till the entire insolvency resolution process of the principal borrower is completed and carried to its logical conclusion. In fact, if I was to interpret Section 14 in the fashion the Defendants want to interpret it, the same would defeat the very purpose for which Section 14 was enacted. The Legislature has specifically chosen to remedy the mischief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 30 (2), it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. Section 31(2) stipulates that if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan does not conform to the requirements of section 31(1), it may by order reject the resolution plan. However, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan, then (a) the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 14 shall cease to have effect and (b) the resolution professional shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the resolution plan to the Board to be recorded on its database. Naturally, the moratorium order passed under Section 14 shall cease to have effect once the resolution plan is approved because thereafter all the parties have to act as per the approved resolution plan. I do not see how this provision, namely Section 31, comes to the assistance of the Defendants, as contended by Mr. Goradia. Section 31 only contemplates the approval of a resolution plan that has been for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of- (a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person; (b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and (c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation specified for any suit or application by or against a corporate debtor for which an order of moratorium has been made under this Part, the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded. 57. What Section 60 (1) contemplates is that the Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and the liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the NCLT having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to contend that a guarantor would also get the benefits of an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 in relation to the corporate debtor. If the personal guarantor was to get benefit of any order of moratorium then he would have to file an application as contemplated under Section 94 or an application would have to be filed by his creditor to initiate the insolvency resolution process as contemplated under section 95 of the Code. It is only then that the interim moratorium as contemplated under Section 96 gets triggered and if an application filed under Sections 94 or 95 is admitted, a final order of moratorium would be passed under Section 101 which also would have effect for a period of 180 days beginning with the date of admission of the application or till the date the Adjudicating Authority passes the order on the repayment plan under Section 114, whichever is earlier. 59. What is absolutely clear from the Code is that for the guarantor (be it a personal guarantor or a corporate guarantor), there is no automatic protection. It is only once the insolvency resolution process has been initiated either by or against the guarantor (be it a personal guarantor or a corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the parties have appeared before the insolvency professional. There is absolutely no discussion on this point at all by the Allahabad High Court. As mentioned earlier, under Section 14, an order of moratorium is passed in favour of a corporate debtor and not in favour of a guarantor. The Allahabad High Court has also come to the aforesaid conclusion because according to it once the liability is still in a fluid situation and the same has not been crystallized, then in such situation two parallel/split proceedings in different jurisdictions should be avoided, if possible. Firstly, I fail to understand as to how two proceedings are either parallel/split proceedings. The proceedings under the IBC, 2016 are not recovery proceedings but proceedings for either insolvency resolution or liquidation and/or bankruptcy as the case may be. On the other hand, the suit filed in this Court against the present Defendants (as guarantors), is a proceeding for recovery of money. The two proceedings operate in totally different fields. Hence, to my mind at least, the same cannot be equated as parallel/split proceedings as held by the Allahabad High Court. This is more so when one takes into consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecree can be executed earlier. There is nothing in law which provides such a composite decree to be first executed only against the [principal debtor]. 39. In Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala [(2009) 9 SCC 478] this Court again held that the liability of the guarantor and principal debtor is coextensive and not in alternative and the creditor/decree-holder has the right to proceed against either for recovery of dues or realisation of the decretal amount. 40. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned cases, it must be held that the High Court completely misdirected itself in assuming that the appellant could not have initiated action against Respondent 1 without making efforts for recovery of its dues from the borrower, Respondent 2. 62. In view of my discussion earlier, I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court. 63. As far as the argument on the merits of the case are concerned, I have already dealt with them earlier. The defences raised on merits is totally moonshine and illusory. There is no real dispute on the merits of the case. However, purely out of mercy, leave is granted to the Defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
