CITIBANK N A Vs. KONEGA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM a perusal of the petition and the annexures thereto, it is apparent that the respondent does not deny that it had executed a guarantee in favour of petitioner bank to secure repayment of the dues of one Mawar Exim Pvt.Ltd. All that respondent company urges before me that petitioner has filed proceedings before D.R.T. against the borrower. In the light of the proceedings pending against principal borrower, this petition should not be entertained.

(2.) THERE is no substance in this contention. The guarantor's liability being undisputed and it being a company nothing prevents the petitioners from invoking this Court's jurisdiction under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act against it. That apart, nothing is pointed out which prevents filing and prosecuting a petition against a guarantor merely because proceedings before D.R.T. against principal borrower are pending. Mr.Lad appearing for respondent company on earlier occasion had invited my attention to the affidavit filed in reply and specifically contended that settlement talks were in progress and an offer for one time settlement was made. Petitioner bank was considering it and the entire claim would be settled upon payment of Rs.2.5 Crores. His statement was recorded by me on 29th March 2006 that respondent, to show its bonafides, would deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs within two weeks therefrom and pursue its offer for one time settlement. Mr. Ardeshir invites my attention to the fact that amount is not deposited. No offer for settlement was made. In the light of the above and the fact that the deed of guarantee has been executed, company petition deserves to be admitted. It is accordingly admitted. However, at the request of Mr. Lad petition not to be advertised for a period of four weeks from today.