https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99004 The court found the promissory note, hypothecation agreement, and equitable mortgage to be valid and binding on Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 6 was held liable for the amount due, rejecting arguments that the liability ended with a prior agreement. Defendant No. 5 did not object to a decree, and Defendant No. 7's rights were subject to the plaintiff's as a prior mortgagee. The court decreed the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 1,97,343.01 with interest and costs from the sale proceeds of mortgaged properties, with the option to recover the balance from Defendant No. 1's assets as an unsecured creditor. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:55:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99004 The court found the promissory note, hypothecation agreement, and equitable mortgage to be valid and binding on Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 6 was held liable for the amount due, rejecting arguments that the liability ended with a prior agreement. Defendant No. 5 did not object to a decree, and Defendant No. 7's rights were subject to the plaintiff's as a prior mortgagee. The court decreed the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 1,97,343.01 with interest and costs from the sale proceeds of mortgaged properties, with the option to recover the balance from Defendant No. 1's assets as an unsecured creditor. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99004