Vijaya Bank (A Body Corporate … vs M/S Sukhi Decors Pvt Ltd on 22 July, 2009

-1-

IN THE HIEH comm" or KARNATA KA A3" 2AN6ALo:22
omen THIS we 22% my OF JULY, . 
PRESENT  V  K E V
THE HCZNBLE    
AND.' é     '   %
THE :-to:xr3a.E MR.JL}5TICEg§J{E§§§Ufi§{§P--#éLV;§ géiawoa
;2,F,A. §JC+,s3'S/aim 
;:s;::*1'w:<:e;N:     1   

(A boé}? ccérpoxiate <:€§):1:i' 3:5 kirajaches-~::-£5 'Gand1:1i Bazaar

 ' Rep.1»;_y' its GPA imlder and
 ';}s'£a1;ag;é;:.'ifi/E.;*X.§'oonac3na .. APPELLANT

    Decors Pvt. Ltd.

' Bafigaiére -4 " « 

{By'~S:ri ,i;s.'i*A:;t;§t;etty, Adv.,}

E Reg.{)f£icc # IE3 Haudin Road
7 Bangaicre-42

R313. by its Directcm »
\;»/

 



2, Udayamini Biiergde
W7 0. B. 8. Fiegde
Major, # 166, 3"' Cross
Hanumant Nagar   ..
Bat1ga}0re-- 3.9 I

3. Santhosh, iztkiegde
S/a.B.B.Hcgde
34 years
Dimctor   V
M] s.S11khi Decors  Ltd. "  j'
#15, Haudin Road"-.  _   j
BaI1gaIort:~4i2. T  "
4. C.A.Sa.kthrid_ " _
Bangalgrér.-«=32 '  ' . 
5. 1:'._.1:s.Hcg'ci?e_--v     . _'
Sf.0.;*3;na11thy_jL*;3€ S}:!,efty " __
Magm'#:5és,_3ui'Crc§m"'« "
Hantnzgaxzt Nagaii " '  
, B.a1:1galért:~1'9 = '- .. §ESF'ONDENTS

  is filed under Order 4} Rule 1 r/W. Section
9:'; efV__fE}1»'f3.f"against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2001
pa3S:':d i-in (.}.8.P~i0.142'7/2996 by the" mix Aciditjonal City

 AA Civfl Judge, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit filed by the
 ._ Vaipfjeflantj piaintiff for money as against

\a/"

 



  its registemd ofiicc at New Timber
  fiangajore. Defezidanis 2 to .3 are

 _ the  of the first defenda.nt-c0mpan3:. 4th

.1 , H  was the Director of the company and hé

.'.'T&'_.rés§ g1iéd fiam the Directsrshig of the coI:z1pan§: in the

xwespondent/defiandani No.1 and dismissing the  as

against respondents] defendants 2 ts 5-V

‘i°’h;is £€l*’A coming on for heaxfijg, tnis.day UL, ” ”

deiivered the followi::1g:–

Jfififififififi
This is the ~-aggéinst the judgment
and decree of t£j1_e: the suit of the

piaiI1tiff agai:3_i:s4.t«§;§’£iéf_7€:I1E£saI’it:SV. 2 1495, éwsbanea by time.

2._v”1<'or_tj;me céfivérfience, the parties are
referz'efi;t;c$ as'thé§5:»3.re v3"T € f:3–I§'IT3d to in the: orig"1:1a£ suit.

_;3; ,'i'hei dezfendant is a Private Lixllited

nleeting of Board Oi? mrectors heid 911 12.3.1990.

defendant is the guarantor of the first _,_ A'

company in respect of the aévanee/f'aei£ity__ .:s..veIi}ed'–t.:::b}z

the company. 5th defendant is alse A ;_e .'

the first defendant in respect 01' tile tidxteinee
the first (1€f€I"1d8Ilt-C0fl}p81"1y '§ee}t1K.':Vf;'§\;1e
second defendant on fieiendent and
also her behali' along requested

Loan Cash

the piaimifiz
Credit) faeiitty iet working Capital
requiremeiet K ':~V.f;;i:'st'"..tiei"e1'1c.§ant–compa3:1y for the
purpeee of plastic furr1iture

of the fi"1f:_§j=,§':}:1'ef'ende2*:1~.1*….V::'l'h3e £0.31) was sanctioned. in this

defendant executed on demand
fiettetter of uxzdertaking. an agreemezit
OLCC an hypothecatien of movable
62.7. 198?' in faveur of the piaixltifiibank,

._g12e;'e';}teeiI2g the repayment ofthe advance made to the

T

-5-

first defendant–compa1}y to the extent of i~£s.i3,:”i(),4{,}.Qi-J”_/’>r,_

{)1} 13.1990, the third defendant is app0i_iH1’te€§_’ _

Additional i)irec’£or of the c0mpanyV.>AA>VAfter.acijvtiS;:i1ég the

amounts paid by the defendants, :’£he§f”a:£:e ‘If

pay a sum of 1<s.9,e9,512e.e';-3. the"

statement of aceounfs in %';4ei0 :gea:V,VNo§S;e?Lf The
defendants did not in spite of
repeated requestseémd 'iiable to pay
the interest at compoundame
quar{erly_ ::,V.715t3»Eerefore, the plaintiff
filed a sfiit for 15 together with

interest at tBe_r'ate 0f 4V2.};:3:S";/o p.a. and for a direction to

.se1£ iyxjmevaginle A praperties which are hypothecated

seczmiy for _aforesa.id loan amount.

4… After. ésenriee of summons, defendants 1, 2, 3

” ” ‘T 5;%f1ie€i—{vritten statement. They coniendeé that the

is by time. The suit is aiso bad for nan»-

ljjijemcier of necessary parties. ‘I’hey contended that the

defendants are stiil due in any amount, they majfhe

permitted to pay the decretal amount in A’

instaixnent of i<Is.5',()U()/ -.

E2. on the aforesaici pie3.di1.9ig:s,:1.–'_A_T¥ilr;€-3

framed the Ibflowing five iSS':1es:_§

1. Wheth€r,1’h.;¢ pla’ejiitii;f’ préifés the
borr0wi:1g ” §:”‘ on the
guarantee “0’i’- the ” 4 and

é Vthc’: piaint as

” V’

;§:ajnti:1′:oan;: is entitled
rVé<;-'._'0\Ar.:*;:" vtffie compound ixlterest at

tf51€3v–I;§t€ fiharged and ciaimeci?

.:V"-fiizetfler the suit is i3aI'red by

' figfiimtion?

” .. Whether the suit is not maintainabie

as contended?

-3-

5. Whether the defendants are joi;:1tly ~—_,
and sevérafly fiable to pay the su_it.:
claim? 9′

7. In support of their CJ.3.i.IP;.’,””th¢
examined three witnesses as 7.:

22 documents which are
behalf 9:’ the defez1dants,.zthe €.1’V¢ft§i’£€iaI1t”iS”{3}:3i:niI1€:d
as DW 1 and they got ti7;E:;:’ci(§g§:{:ir3,:(é11j:s as h3x.1)}

to D4.

8. “0n’–.a§prec:iétion of the aforesaid
Ora} a1}dV”éQo£:u1T1<3iit.?§iIry 'c31;fi€:'.§;i";::e on record categorically

held that %deft::fI:dé.*ji'ts~–"'»LVhave executed afl the suit

" and thé'agreemez1ts. it further held that the

ge¢a;1j%a: on behalf of the first defendant has

exeéuééd _ ;ac1mowiedgemem: of liability dated

–. 199{}V__€3nd therefore in so far as the first defendant

V'<j;*<::«1f;x§;é:%;I'1zec£, the: suit is in tima. it i'1i1*ther helé that the

5-ggtément cf accounts shows that as at the end of

– 9-

Qecember 1992, the defendants are liabie to pay a.:e§1m
of 1<s.4,4e,04»1.15. The plaintiff failed to esta»'Vl;;§.l.ii:4é.V:i91': V.
the defendants are liable ts pay the '
of 21.25% p.a. on the said amoteii
suit. am it held that the % a by?

defendants is 16.5′:/o p.a. ‘1’i”fi.e.i*’efere,”‘
deereed the suit for with
interest at the rate of 1992 up to
the date of at 16.5.9/o

p.a._. but sif}1pi€:4_”Q{;>weve’:f, ‘it heid that the suit

agaizlstwivother dearly barred by ij111i’£;a1:ion

and thereiTe.1je . .die1i1’i§§5sed the suit against them.

by the”dis_m.issa£ of the suit against the other

–not deereeing the claim of the plaintifi’

asg’ g}r¢£3.zed_« piainfifi” has preferred this appeal’.

A. fiearneé counsei appearing fer the appeiiam,

the impugned judgrzent. and decree, contended

T ~ the}: as per the statement of accounts a sum ef’

» ‘ «.t-§lé:”s%;_p0I:deI2tS though served, have remained

“:3,%5:§én£§ * j

uh! if} ..

I~:s.4,4~{),{)41.15 is due from the defendants £:g the
plaizntiff. The said account was deciarefff
parforming account. Hawever, before Iflfiié’ «f.?i{
interest is Calcmated and tha{gié”I1ew_
is arrived at. The interest _ is
and then compounded. thé
Qthfii’ defenziants, . have
executed the Qeed is a C01’ltiI11.iiI3.g
guarantee §é>a.§1..:V.};fc:cou:1t beixig an
Open ;;;§;coi1nt, the guarantee
c0:1ti§1ues;’.9f –si1it along with the loan and
theref<:'i;*e ficommitted a serious error in

disifiiissing the_ $§1it {:11 the geund of bar of limitation.

– ..

11. In the Light cf the aibresaid materiai an rgcofd,
the points that arisg for our consideration in _

are as undert-

1) Whether mg *m.%;;:% % %
jusuified in n<$L~.:gfiva1*diiig.__int§;i't:si'~«;it'
21.5% p__.a. and}…§1je3<;3:;<a:§;:iI1gh't;has:_sf;;5it

only at thératé V 'p:a.?

ii) W_f:e.t11e:f”‘ii:e::’§’iif:df:1g cffisge Court
t.hat .{;he__..Sf_uit VVi:S”‘barred by

1 _ ‘i;_ti;;e 15 j~’u1$~:i1fi«e;d2>A»’

From’ material on recorci, it is

ciear that .éi§l_ the productad by the piaintiffs,

.,:1n s1:.fi1p§;1*t sf are all duiy executeci by the

V”._di~fi?512dan:s.%*.._’I’h€ Ageement provides for an ijzterest

pagfibie ai V:*fite§€>.5’§/o 13.3. However, the imerest rate

Ts_tipulxa:e§fig_i$ 5% p.a. over the Reserve Bank of India,

‘§*atA¢VTLi%?ith a minimum interesi of 16.5% pa. an tbs

…_ ‘ :&IIi£)UI’l3Z Of £_/- which is the loan facifity gven

Hencéi,    in this appeai.
Accordingly