A R KEJARIWAL Vs. N KRISHNAN ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is filed as against the order dated 18. 2. 2005 in Tr. C. A. No. 851 of 2004 in C. P. No. 613 of 2000.

(2.) THE first appellant's wife Bimala Devi along with the first appellant obtained loan from one Swarnadhara Credit Corporation Limited, which was later on merged with Lakshmi Credits Limited, which is the company in liquidation. THE company in liquidation filed a, in C. S. No. 732 of 1998 for recovery of a of Rs. 10 ,47,43 8 together with interest at rate of 27%. Consequent to the death of Bimala Devi, the suit is filed as against the appellants 1 and 2 who are the legal heirs of the Bimala Devi. THE said suit came to be filed the company in liquidation after obtaining of the Company Court in c. P. No. 613 of 2000. THE order of attachment was also ordered attaching the property situated at Bangalore . Subsequently, the Administrator of the Company in liquidation filed a memo wherein a direction is sought for as against the appellants/defendants in the suit to pay the suit claim, failing which the property under attachment should be ordered for sale. THE learned single Judge has passed a decree as prayed for in the said memo. Aggrieved against the said order, the above appeal is filed.

(3.) THE impugned judgment does not disclose the reasoning under which the conclusions are arrived at except by adducing a reason to the effect that the appellants are not in a position to show as to why the claims should not be decreed. It is settled law that, the process of reasoning by which the Court came to ultimate conclusion and passed a decree should be reflected in the judgment, as held by the Apex Court in its decision in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, A. I. R. 1999 S. C 3381. Hence, we are not in agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge in granting the decree.