9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Aarohi Diamonds Ltd. The said Aarohi Diamonds Limited had obtained a credit facility to the tune of 7 million US$ from respondent - ICICI Bank Limited. The said loan was secured by a corporate guarantee by the present appellant in favour of ICICI Bank Limited. Later on, the credit facility was reduced to 5 million US$. Apparently, the principal borrower Aarohi Diamonds' defaulted in repayment of the said loan to the respondent bank which resulted in the respondent Bank cancelling the cash credit facility under which the loan was obtained. The consequence of the same would be demanding the borrower to make payment of dues which is said to be 5.15 million US$ as on 3rd January 2012. 2. So far as the appellant is concerned, the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence or acted upon in a Company Petition. The third contention was that there is no certificate issued by any authorized officer of the respondent Bank in respect of its claim in the petition which was a requirement of the Corporate Guarantee Agreement. Apart from these three contentions, they also alleged that no deductions or reference is made to several payments made by the principal borrower to the respondent Bank in discharge of the guaranteed debt. 5. Several arguments were addressed on behalf of both the parties. Ultimately, learned Judge after referring to the decisions relied upon by the appellant Company in the cases of Agenda Commercial International Ltd. v. Custodian of the Branches of Banco Nacional Ultramarino, (1982) 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned. We feel there is no need to intervene with this opinion of learned Single Judge. 7. The second contention that was raised before the learned Single Judge was that the document of corporate guarantee was inadequately stamped. Therefore, it cannot be acted upon in the Company Petition. The corporate guarantee in question, admittedly, was executed in the State of Gujarat and it was on a stamp of duty of Rs. 100/- in accordance with the residuary Clause i.e Clause (j) Article no. 5 of Schedule-I to the Bombay Stamp Act as applicable in Gujarat. 8. In the State of Gujarat where the document of corporate guarantee was executed, it was based an adequate stamp duty payable on the instrument so far as that State. According to the appellant, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dues by the main borrower, in a Civil Court, the creditor could not be relying upon this document which forms the basis of the debt since it is inadequately stamped. If such defence is taken up in a Civil Suit, and if the document in question is insufficiently stamped, probably, such defence may come to the aid of the appellant. At this stage, there are no steps taken by the creditor to enforce its claim against the guarantor based on the documents of corporate guarantee in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, definitely, in the present Company Petition, the Company Court was not required to consider such plea raised by the appellant. Therefore, such defence will not hold water in aid of appellant's contention. 10. Then, coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereto) and each of the other Finance Document(s) (copies of such have been provided to me)." 12. There is another letter addressed by the appellant dated 17 May 2010 a year later, reiterating the position which reads as under: "In consideration of your having agreed to enter into the Supplementary Facility Letter with the Borrower, we hereby agree, confirm and undertake that (i) the Guarantee continues to subsist and remains valid and binding on us for all the obligations of the Borrower under the Supplementary Facility Letter, Facility Letter and General Commercial Agreement; (ii) we shall do all such acts, deeds and things and execute such deeds, documents and writings as shall be required by you from us in connection with the Faciliti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of the debt as on the date of the petition. On the other hand, in the rejoinder filed to the affidavit in reply before the Company Court, the respondent Bank had disclosed the payment made by the principal borrower to the appellant during the pendency of the petition. After giving credit to all those payments, the dues were shown as 33.53 crores as on the date of filing of rejoinder. This was the amount payable as a guarantor by the appellant to the respondent bank. The contention now raised before us are similar to that of the contentions raised before the Company Court, the discussion and reasoning mentioned above, would clearly indicate that no good grounds are raised by the appellant, warranting interference with the opinion e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
