Full Judgment Text
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.
JUDGMENT
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.
1
Page 1
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
JUDGMENT
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
2
Page 2
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.
JUDGMENT
7. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to
costs.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
3
Page 3