BANK OF BARODA Vs. SHYADARI STEELS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bank of Baroda filed two suits against the defendants M/s Shyadari Steels Pvt. Ltd and others and both of them are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) SUIT No. l/1989,was filed by the plaintiff Bank of Baroda against the defendants M/s Shyadari Steels Pvt. Ltd and others for the recovery of Rs. 6,13,593. 75 alongwith interest upto April 19,1980 for a sum of Rs. 1,54,633,65, total Rs. 7,68,227. 40 P. The suit was filed in the court of District Judge Bharatpur and was registered as civil suit No. 19/1980 (45/1986) which was ultimately transferred to this court vide order dated August 26,1988 in company petition No. 2/1986. The service was effected by adopting the mode of substituted service in accordance with order dated September 7,1990. None appeared on July 19,1991 and the suit proceeded exparte. On August 30,1991 an opportunity was given to the pliaintiff to produce the witnesses. Vide order dated November 15,1991 another suit which was filed by the Bank was also directed to be consolidated. During the trial the written statement on behalf of defendant No. 4 was filed on December 4,1980. On March 4,1982 the following issues were framed - "1. Whether Shri Tara Chand Gupta is duly authorised to sign,verify and present the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff? 2 Whether the plaintiff sanctioned deferred payment guarantee for Rs. 7,82,375/- to the defendants on 5. 2. 1974 and the defendants executed the concerned documents under that guarantee? 3 Whether the documents under the above guarantee are inadmissible in evidence as they are not duly stamped and are not registered? 4 Whether the defendants purchased machinery from M/s Textool Co. Ltd. Coimbtoor,and the plaintiff made payment of Rs. 6,13,597. 75 P on behalf of the defendants on account of the six bills as alleged in paras No. 4 and 5 of the plaint? 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 1,54, 633. 65 P as interest,as alleged in para 5 of the plaint? 6 Whether the defendant No. 4 resigned from Directorship of the defendant No. l on 26. 8. 75 and intimated the fact to the plaintiff. If so,what is its effect on the liability, if any, of the defendant No. 4 inrespect of the amount in suit? 7 Whether the defendant No. 5 resigned from the Directorship of the defendant No. l on 12. 9. 75 and intimated the fact to the plaintiff. If so, what is its effect on the liability, if any,of the defendant No. 5 in respect of the amount in suit? 8 Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount in suit? 9 Whether the suit or any part of it is barred by limitation? 10 Whether the. suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C. P. C. as alleged in para 2 of the preliminary objections and para 5 of the reply on merits in the written statement of defendant No. 5 11 Whether the defendant No. l had its registered head office in Bharatpur,as alleged in the plaint? 12 Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? 13 Whether M/s Textool Co. Ltd is a necessary party to the suit? if so,its effect? 14 Whether the persons mentioned in para 6 of the reply on merits in the written statement of the defendant No. 5 necessary parties to the suit? if so. its effect? 15 Whether the defendant No. 5 is absolved of his liabillity, if any, for the amount in suit under Sections 130,133,135,139 and 141,contract Act. ? 16 To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" Evidence by way of affidavit on December 6,1991 was filed.