ADIL AHMED Vs. CANARA BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the guarantor for the loan taken by Sajidur Rahman (respondent No.4) from the Kahilipara Branch of the Canara Bank . Since the repayment of the loan was not made in due time, the Bank moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), where the proclamation of sale of the mortgaged property was ordered by the Recovery Officer, DRT on 30.7.2015 (Annexure-III). Eventually the mortgaged property of the borrower was sold but since the outstanding was substantial, the DRT on 22.12.2015 has now ordered for valuation of the guarantors' property, for proclamation of sale of such property of the guarantor.

(2.) Ms. D. Sinha, the learned Counsel submits that the respondent No.5, 6, 7 and 8 are close relatives of the loan taker Sajidur Rahman and their properties too were mortgaged. But the Bank has selectively directed the property of the petitioner, as one of the guarantors, to recover the huge outstanding of the respondent No.4.

(3.) However Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned Counsel appearing forf the respondent Canara Bank submits that liability of the guarantor is coextensive with the principal debtor and accordingly he contends that that there can be no interference with the legitimate order passed by the DRT on 22.12.2015 (Annexure-IV).