PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLEATE TRIBU. & ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1410 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2016
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 26542 of 2008)
PUNJAB & SIND BANK APPELLANT
VERSUS
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-bank is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
07.04.2008 of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 7730 of 2007. The appellant had
challenged the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi in Misc. Appeal No.134 of 2006 whereby the respondent
No.2 herein had been ordered to be deleted as a defendant/guarantor in the
Original Application No.343/2004, pending before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Chandigarh.
3. The High Court at page 7 of the impugned judgment has held as follows
:
“From the above pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that
the bank has admitted that respondent No.2 had resigned from the Board of
Director of respondent No.3-Company and another Director has executed a
fresh guarantee substituting him. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of
the petitioner bank to say that respondent No.2 is not absolved of his
liability even from the documents placed on record. The stand of the
petitioner bank to the effect that the guarantee deed executed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 13.5.2003 was additional guarantee, is falsified
from fresh guarantee deed, executed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which shows
that they had executed this guarantee deed for a sum of Rs.6,70,51,800.85
Ps., the exact amount, which was outstanding on that day.
We also find that the loan amount of the petitioner bank has been
secured by respondent company by executing mortgage deeds of sufficient
valuable properties. In addition personal guarantees have also been
executed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.”
4 The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
as a matter of fact, there is no guarantee furnished by anybody
substituting the guarantee furnished by respondent No.2. Learned senior
counsel for the Bank submits that from other proceedings before the
Tribunal, it is clear that one Mr. Sharanpal Singh Juneja had executed a
fresh guarantee in place of respondent No.2. Since the High Court has
proceeded on the basis that there is already a guarantee executed by Shri
Juneja substituting the respondent No.2, we find there is an error
apparent on the face of the record for which the appellant has to approach
the High Court itself by way of an application for review. Therefore, we
dispose of this appeal permitting the appellant to move an appropriate
application for review. We make it clear that in case review application
is filed within a month from today, the same shall not be dismissed on the
ground of limitation since the appellant has been prosecuting the case
before this Court.
5 We make it clear that if there are any other errors which have crept
in the impugned judgment of the High Court, it will be open to the
appellant to take out the same in the review application.
6 We also make it clear that it will be open to the respondent No.2 to
take up all available contentions before the High Court.
7. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 16, 2016