SICOM LIMITED Vs. PADMASHRI MAHIPATRAI J SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed under section 31 (l) (aa) of the State financial Corporation Act against the guarantors. Since the facts as well as the contentions raised in both the present petitions are substantially identical, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are taken from misc. petition No. 34 of 2002.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the guarantors and for enforcement of their liabilities under the said guarantees, the present petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 31 (l) (aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act.

(3.) One M/s Mehta Rubber Chemical Ltd. , was a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. This company is the respondent No. 4 in the present petition. The said respondent No. 4 made an application for sanction of the loan amount of Rs. 149 lacs towards the term loan. The same was sanctioned by the petitioner on the various terms and conditions one of which was to mortgage the entire plant, machinery and land and building of the said respondent No. 4 with the petitioner herein. The said amount was subsequently disbursed on 6-1-1995 and the company has availed of the said loan amount of rs. 149 lacs. A deed of mortgage was executed on 6-1-1995. The respondent no. 4 thereunder created the first charge in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot of land bearing plot No. T-133 in Tarapur Industrial Area of MIDC as well as the building and structure standing thereon along with the plant and machinery.