9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 3 are the guarantors and for enforcement of their liabilities under the said guarantees, the present petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act. 3. One M/s. Mehta Rubber Chemical Ltd,. was a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. This company is the respondent No. 4 in the present petition. The said respondent No. 4 made an application for sanction of the loan amount of Rs. 149 lacs towards the term loan. The same was sanctioned by the petitioner on the various terms and conditions one of which was to mortgage the entire plant, machinery and land and building of the said respondent No. 4 with the petitioner herein. The said amount was subsequently di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch were over due as on that date. Ultimately, the petitioner has recalled the said loan and exercised power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and took over the said property mortgaged in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter the guarantees were invoked by the petitioner which were executed by respondent No. 1 to 3. By their demand notice dated 23.4.2002 the petitioners called upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to make payment of the said amount outstanding of Rs. 1,06,97,487/- The present petition is filed by the petitioner for the enforcement of the said guarantees. An additional affidavit has been filed dated 11.3.2005 inter alia pointing out therein that there is an outstanding amount due and payable by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der :- Having its registered office at 215-216, Swastik Chambers, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071. The averment in the petition pertaining to the jurisdiction are set out in paragraph 14 of the said petition. Same are set out hereinunder:- 14. The Petitioner submits that, the said Company is having its registered office at Bombay and substantial business of the company is being carried out at Bombay. The various facilities were sanctioned and disbursed at Bombay the same was repayable at Bombay. The Respondents have executed and delivered the Deed of Guarantees, which is the subject matter of the present petition at Bombay. The Respondents are residing and or carrying on their business in Bombay within the jurisdiction of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid judgment in Misc. Petition No. 11 of 2002 that if the office of the industrial concern is situated within the local limits of this Court then this Court still have jurisdiction to entertain the claim, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and I therefore reject the same. 7. The next contention raised is that the petitioner has disposed of all the assets of respondent No. 4 at throw away price and, therefore, under section 139 of the Indian Contract Act, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are discharge. I am not inclined to accept the said contention also because the power exercised under section 29 by the petitioner has not been challenged by the company. The company has accepted the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew the guarantee is given in consideration of loan amount lent and advanced. It is not required in law that there should be independent consideration for each of the clauses of the said guarantee. Thus the contention does not have any merits and required to be rejected. 10. It has been next contended that the respondent No. 1 to 3 executed a guarantee subsequent to the release of the financial assistance to the petitioner and, therefore, there was no consideration for execution of the guarantee itself. Section 23 of the Contract Act provides that post consideration is valid consideration and, therefore, the said submission made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are required to be rejected. 11. The next contention advanced is that the said clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the aforesaid contention the respondents No. 1 to 3 has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Watson Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in [1979]1SCR372 . In my view the aforesaid contention is no longer a res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in [1991]1SCR480a The said judgment in fact deals with identical contention as raised by the respondents No. 1 to 3 by relying upon the provisions of section 31(1)(aa) and, therefore, the said contention is devoid of any merits and liable to be rejected. 14. The next contention is that the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
