TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent no. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is erroneous because it directs private individuals/directors for repayment of loan taken by respondent no. 2 which is a corporate entity. The Court would note that although the appeal was filed, by the now arrayed respondent no. 2, as the first appellant along with aforementioned appellant/directors, it was at the behest of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the last date of hearing, that the erstwhile appellant no. 1 has now been transposed as respondent no. 2. The amended memo of parties has not been filed despite directions to that effect. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants states that there being no privity of contract to a loan betw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... play of Pradeep Aggarwal herein and acted as per the dictums of the Pradeep Aggarwal, husband of the plaintiff. However, after the grant of said loan facility of Rs. One crore, the defendant company was making installments of loan amount/interest upto March, 2011. However, thereafter due to financial constraints, the Defendant no. 1 could not make the payment of interest of land and on insistence of Pradeep Aggarwal, the Defendant no.1 could not make the payment of Rs. 10 lacs. In fact, out of the total loan of Rs. One crore, the Defendant no.1 paid a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and they requested to said Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, husband of the plaintiff for making the balance payment of loan shortly. However, the intentions of Pradeep Aggarwal, becam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Instrument Act,1881. Simultaneously, they also sought recovery of the money through the suit in which the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon an order of this Court in Space Enterprises vs. Srivivasa Enterprises Limited 1998 Law Suit(Del) 268, the relevant paras read as under:- "12. There is no contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Therefore, case against defendant No. 2 is not based on any contract nor there is any such liability on defendant No. 2. Consequently, there is no cause of action against defendant No. 2. Since, there is no cause of action against defendant No. 2, the plaint is liable to be rejected so far as defendant No. 2 is concerned. 13. As regards defendant No. 1 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt(s) also handed over one post dated cheque bearing No.857388 dated 19.04.2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Bhogal Lane, New , Delhl-110014 as a security towards discharges of liability of loan of Rs. 1 Crore towards you addressee(s). You addressee have also taken five blank cheques from the Account of my client No.3 as additional security. It was agreed between the parties that if my clients failed to pay back the said loan on or before 19.04.2013, you addressee(s) can use that cheques only on the consent and under information to my client(s). 10. That the interest of therefore loan was regularly paid by my client(s) in the name of you addressee No.2 till 20.10.2012 on said agreed rate of interest/amount. 11. That due to extreme financial cris....