TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (3) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/- with interest. Suit No. 3828 of 1999 is filed by the same plaintiffs against Rajesh Dhirajlal Vora for recovery of the identical amount and Suit No. 3845 of 1999 is filed by the same plaintiffs against Sunayana Rajesh Vora for a decree in the identical amount. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had advanced loans to the Companies and partnerships, which are controlled by the three defendants, who belongs to the same family and to secure those loans these three defendants had executed personal guarantee in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. These suits have been filed on the basis of those guarantees for recovery of the amount of loans. In these three suits, the plaintiff have taken out motions for attachment of the proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the Company which is before the B.I.F.R. cannot be continued, still the amounts which have been advanced to the other Companies and the partnership firm excluding the amount of loan that has been advanced to the Company which is before the B.I.F.R. is substantial and there can be no dispute that those proceedings for securing the claim of the plaintiffs in relation to the loan advanced to the other Company and partnership firm can definitely go on before the Court. The plaintiffs, in these suits have claimed a decree in the amount of Rs. 4,73,00,000/-, which is the principal amount together with interest and the principal amount of loan against the Company, which is before the B.I.F.R. is to the tune of Rs. 2,65,00,000/-. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them under coercion. It is pertinent to note here that though the guarantees are of the year 1996, and these declarations on affidavit are made in the year 1996, these declarations saw light of the day for the first time when in September, 1998 the plaintiffs filed in this Court Civil Suit No. 5008 of 1998. Before that no report was made to the police. No protest was made with the plaintiffs that bank guarantees have been obtained from these defendants by coercion. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the stand that the guarantees were obtained by coercion is an afterthought and at least at this stage cannot be believed. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendants further submitted that one of the properties in relation to which an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in evidence, the Court can impound the document and recover the required stamp duty. At this stage, however, as the document is on stamp paper, it cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped and the Court cannot decline interim relief or Court cannot at the stage of considering the application for interim relief be stopped in its track and unless it first considers the question whether the document is sufficiently stamped or not. It is pointed out by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the documents are properly stamped. Insofar as the objection of the learned Counsel regarding the orders sought by the plaintiff for direction to the defendants to disclose their assets is concerned, it is clear from the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- (Rupees two Crores Eight Lakh only) within a period of eight weeks from today. In case, the defendants comply with this order and furnish the security as directed above, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to take out a Notice of Motion seeking attachment before judgment against the defendants in relation to their guarantees as against the loan advanced by the plaintiffs to Rushabh Precision Bearing Ltd. It is clarified that the question of maintainability of such proceedings against the defendants in relation to the loan advanced to Rushabh Precision Bearing Ltd. is not decided by this order and is left open. In case, the plaintiffs do not furnish the securities as directed above, they are directed to disclose their assets on affidav....