2004 (8) TMI 401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 15 of 2003 before the lower court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,75,225 with subsequent interest at 14 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the defendants, for a personal decree against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for the amount due to the plaintiff and for costs; that the respondent herein has also filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 50 of 2003 praying to issue notice to the petitioners herein calling upon them to furnish security for the suit amount and failure to furnish such security, attach the properties mentioned in the petition before judgment. 3. It further comes to be known that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge having considered the pleadin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 23) 5. The honourable Apex Court, quoting the above section, would hold : "...The words are crystal clear. There is no ambiguity therein. It must, therefore, be held that no suit for the enforcement of a guarantee in respect of a loan or advance granted to the concerned industrial company will lie or can be proceeded with/without the sanction of the Board or the Appellate Authority under the said Act." (p. 23) 6. Citing the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners would exhort that this provision of law as espoused by the honourable Apex Court is applicable to the case in hand since the first defendant is a company which has been declared "sick" and only for the benefit of the said company, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicate that they are the directors of the Jawahar Mills Limited, Salem-5 and they jointly and severally for themselves and on behalf of the Jawahar Mills Limited, each of them personally promising to pay to the respondent, have borrowed the said amount duly executing the suit pronote. The court below, having extracted the version of the pronote in its order and discussing on the subject as to whether it is only for and on behalf of the first defendant company and for the benefit of the first defendant company, the petitioners have borrowed the amounts or have they borrowed the amounts in their individual capacity or in both, has ultimately arrived at the conclusion that these two petitioners have executed the pronote not only as the directo....