2018 (12) TMI 1436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o him. It is his case that the same were lost or are untraceable since April, 2016. A report was also filed with the concerned Police Station, i.e., P. S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were duly informed and were requested to issue duplicate share certificates. On the respondents' inaction in issuing duplicate certificates, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Bench praying that respondent No. 1 be directed to do the needful. 3. It would be pertinent to note the relevant background of the parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are brothers, being sons of Shri Madan Lal Mundra, who in turn is one of the lineal decedents of late Shri Suraj Lal Mundra. In terms of the family settlement between ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evelopment P. Ltd. 6. The respondents have filed the copy of the deed of guarantee dated February 8, 2013 offered to Celica Developers P. Ltd. In terms thereof, respondent No. 2 for himself and on behalf of respondent No. 1 had agreed as follows : (a) My liability under this guarantee shall be that of the principal debtor and it will not be necessary for you to proceed against the borrower or any other guarantor as a condition precedent for enforcing your rights against as hereunder. (b) This guarantee shall be a continuing guarantee and shall be irrevocable and shall continue until borrower discharges all its obligations to you under the loan agreement fully and to your entire satisfaction. (c) This guarantee shall not in any manner be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is fully entitled to retain the shares as security for the due repayment of the debt discharged by them on behalf of Apsom Turner P. Ltd. 9. The point involved in the present petition is short. There is no denial by the petitioner that respondent No. 1-company had offered a corporate guarantee for the loan availed by M/s. Apsom Turner P. Ltd., at his instance. Copy of the corporate guarantee and personal undertaking of respondent No. 2 to remain liable to liquidate the debt of Apsom Turner has been placed on record. It is also not repudiated that respondent No. 1company has paid a sum of Rs. 1.2 crores on invocation of the guarantee to M/s. Celica Developers P. Ltd., which they seek to recover from Apsom Turner in a suit filed by them. The....