Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaint had been signed and filed by an authorised person. (ii) Whether the directors and guarantors were liable for the loan amount.
Issue (i): Whether the plaint had been signed and filed by an authorised person.
Analysis: The evidence included a power of attorney in favour of the bank official who had signed and verified the plaint. The document was proved through affidavit evidence, and the court accepted that the suit had been instituted by a duly authorised representative of the bank.
Conclusion: The plaint was held to have been validly signed and filed by an authorised person.
Issue (ii): Whether the directors and guarantors were liable for the loan amount.
Analysis: The company was treated as a separate legal entity, so directors who had not furnished personal guarantees could not be fastened with liability merely on the basis of their office. The guarantors who had executed guarantees remained liable, while one guarantor stood absolved in view of the payment made during the suit.
Conclusion: Liability was fastened only on the company and the guarantor defendants found liable, and the directors without personal guarantee were not held liable.
Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded to the extent of the amount found due, with recovery ordered against the liable defendants along with interest and costs.