Madras High Court
National Horticulture Board vs M/S.Sachin Floritech Ltd on 27 September, 2022
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S.No.210 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on 01.09.2022
Judgment pronounced on 27.09.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Civil Suit No.210 of 2006
National Horticulture Board
(Ministry of Agriculture)
Represented by its Deputy Director
B.Radhakrishnamurthy
Module No.32,
2nd Floor SIDCO Readymade Garments Complex,
Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. ... Plaintiff
vs.
1. M/s.Sachin Floritech Ltd.
*Plot No.216-B, MLA & MP Colony,
Road No.10C, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad – 500 033.*
2.T.Renga Rao
*Plot No.216-b, MLA & MP Colony
Road No.10C, Jubilee Colony,
Hyderabad-500 033*
3.V.Renga Prasad,
52-1/16-3A NTR Nagar,
Vijayawada-520 008.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 22
C.S.No.210 of 2006
4.P.Jaya Prakash
S/o.B.Batchaiah,
B-302, Satya Apartments,
Masab Tank,
Hyderabad.
5.Industrial Development Bank of India,
480, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ... Defendants
(Amended as per order in Application No.691 of
2018 dated 29.01.2018)*
Civil Suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC and Order 34 Rule 1
of C.P.C. Read with Order 37 Rule (1) of O.S.Rules praying to pass: (a) A
Preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants 1 to 4,
(b) Directing the defendants 1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally along with
the cost of the suit to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,51,64,353/- being the
aggregate amount due with future service charge at 4% per annum and Penal
Interest at 18% per annum commencing from the date of plaint till the date
of final satisfaction of loan amount, (c)If the defendants 1 to 4 failed to pay
the decree amount claimed in clause (b) supra direct the schedule A Land
and Building and Schedule B plant and machinery to be sold in public
auction and appropriate the sale proceeds for the decree amount after
defraying the expenses of sale if the sale proceeds is insufficient to recover
the decretal amount, (d) pass a personal decree against the defendants two,
three and four and (e) to pay the cost of the suit.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2 of 22
C.S.No.210 of 2006
For Plaintiff : M/s.M.Sundar
V.Chinnasami
For Defendants : M/s.Rahul Balaji for D1 to D4
D5 – set ex parte
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.1,51,64,353/- from defendants 1-4 with future service charges at 4% p.a. and penal interest at 18% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of final satisfaction of the loan amount. In the event of default, the plaintiff sought to enforce the mortgage by bringing the property described in the schedule to the plaint for sale and for appropriation of the decretal amount from the sale proceeds after defraying the expenses of sale.
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated as follows:
(a) The plaintiff is a board formed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India for the purpose of promoting, developing and supporting agriculture by providing financial assistance to institutions and individuals engaged in horticulture or the processing of agricultural products. The first defendant applied to the plaintiff on 28.06.1995 for _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 financial assistance by way of term loan for setting up an export oriented unit (EOU) for the cultivation of cut flowers. By relying upon the representation of defendants 2 to 4, the plaintiff sanctioned a term loan not exceeding Rs.1 crore on concessional service charges of 4% p.a. through its letter of intent dated 29.03.1996. In connection therewith, defendants 1-4 executed a demand promissory note dated 05.07.1996; a loan agreement dated 05.07.1996; a deed of hypothecation dated 05.07.1996; a deed of continuing guarantee dated 05.07.1996; an undertaking for creation of permanent security dated 05.07.1996; an undertaking by defendants 2 to 4 not to transfer their shareholding; an undertaking by defendants 2 to 4 to mobilize additional funds, if required, and not to pay off any unsecured debts before the satisfaction of the plaintiff's loan and not to dispose of, pledge, alienate or create any charge over its shareholding; pari-pasu agreement dated 31.09.1997; and memorandum of entry evidencing joint equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant by the first defendant.
(b) The first defendant registered the charge in favour of the plaintiff with the Registrar of Companies under Section 125 and other _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 applicable Sections of the Companies Act 1956 by filing Forms 8 and 13.
Pursuant to the execution of the above documents, the plaintiff disbursed a sum of Rs.50 lacs on 03.07.1997, Rs.35 lacs on 12.03.1998 and Rs.8.50 lacs on 10.02.1999. As per the loan agreement, the repayment schedule was fixed at Rs.20 lacs per year payable on or before 31 st March of each year. The said amounts were required to be paid along with service charges at 4% p.a. The fifth defendant was a prior lender and mortgagee in respect of the suit schedule property, and was in possession of the original title deeds of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the original title deeds could not be deposited with the plaintiff. The first defendant executed revival letters dated 26.09.1998 and 27.08.2001 and thereby acknowledged the debts due to the plaintiff. By relying on the deed of continuing personal guarantee, the plaintiff asserted that defendants 2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable along with the first defendant for the suit claim. The plaintiff also asserted that a search was made in the register of assurances of the sub-District in which the property is situated and that there are no encumbrances other than the encumbrance in favour of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant in relation to the property.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006
3. These statements were denied by the defendants. The first defendant filed the written statement and defendants 2, 3 and 4 adopted the written statement of the first defendant. The first defendant stated as follows. This Court does not have jurisdiction over the dispute. The title deeds were not deposited either at Nandanam or otherwise. The suit is for land and this Court does not have jurisdiction because the land is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The amount quantified and claimed by the plaintiff is subject to proof and that the suit is liable to be dismissed. The fifth defendant was set ex parte by order dated 04.04.2012.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Court framed the following issues on 26.10.2021:-
(i) Whether the borrowings as claimed by the plaintiff is true?
(ii) Whether the defendants 2 to 4 guaranteed repayment of the monies borrowed by the 1st defendant by executing a continuing guarantee as claimed in the plaint?
(iii) Whether there was an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the plaintiff at Chennai on 29.12.1997?
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006
(iv) Whether the revival letters dated 26.09.1998 & 27.08.2001 said to have been executed by the defendants are true and valid?
(v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(vi) whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the basis of alleged deposit of title deeds made within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court?
(vii) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled to?
5. By order dated 15.11.2021, this Court concluded that no oral evidence is necessary and directed the learned Additional Master IV to mark the documents filed by the plaintiff. Based on the said order, on 22.11.2021, the documents filed by the plaintiff were marked as Exs.P1 to P21. The defendants did not adduce evidence.
6. Oral submissions on behalf of the plaintiff were made by Mr.M.Sundar, learned counsel, and on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 by Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel.
_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that a term loan not exceeding Rs.1 crore was sanctioned to the first defendant under letter of intent dated 29.03.1996. In relation thereto, he stated that defendants 1 to 4 executed a loan agreement dated 05.07.1996 (Ex.P2) and several documents relating to such loan, including a memorandum of entry evidencing a joint equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant. He submitted that these documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P12. He further submitted that the charge was registered with the Registrar of Companies by filing Forms 8 and 13 which were exhibited as Exs.P13 and 14. He referred to the statement of account reflecting amounts disbursed to the first defendant. He pointed out that the said statement of account was exhibited as Ex.P15. As per Ex.P15, he stated that the amounts due and payable by defendants 1 to 4 is a sum of Rs.1,51,64,353/-. In support of the contention that it is not necessary to register a mortgage by depositing title deeds, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Johrilal Chowdhary (died) and 4 Others v. D.Shankar Chettiar in A.S.No.895 & 896 of 2010, judgment dated 11.06.2021. In support of the contention that a suit to recover money secured by a mortgage is not a suit for land, he relied on the judgment of this _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 Court in R.Vikram Singh Rajah Bonsle v. V.S.Jagannathan (Vikram Bonsle) in C.S.No.573 of 2001, judgment dated 20.12.2011.
8. Mr. Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4, made submissions to the contrary. By referring to Order XXXIV, Rule 1 of CPC, he submitted that that this suit does not qualify as a suit for foreclosure and is, therefore, not a mortgage suit as per Order XXXIV. By referring to the deeds of guarantee, he stated that the liability of the guarantors is limited under the deeds of guarantee to a maximum of Rs.1 crore. With regard to the statement of account (Ex.P15), he submitted that it includes penal interest at 18% p.a. and that defendants 1-4 are certainly not liable for payment of penal interest especially keeping in mind the fact that these amounts were borrowed for undertaking a floriculture project. He placed reliance on the one time settlement scheme framed by the Government of India for borrowers in the agricultural sector. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S.Gowda, Manu/SC/0788/1994, (Corporation Bank) for the proposition that compound interest with quarterly rests cannot be charged for agricultural loans/advances as per circulars issued by the RBI. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006
9. Based on the pleadings, evidence and contentions advanced by the parties, the issues framed by this Court should be determined. Issue No.5 and Issue No.6 are preliminary issues relating to limitation and jurisdiction. Therefore, said issues are considered first.
Issue No.5:
10. Defendants 1 to 4 pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit claim relates to disbursements made pursuant to loan agreement dated 05.07.1996. The disbursements were made between 03.07.1997 and 10.02.1999. The loan agreement provided for the repayment of amounts received by paying Rs.20 lacs per year on or before 31st March of each year. The plaintiff exhibited revival letters dated 26.09.1998 and 27.08.2001 as Exs.P17 and P18. The suit was presented on 01.04.2003. Therefore, even if limitation is computed from the date of the revival letter dated 27.08.2001, the suit is within three years from the date of the said letter. More importantly, the suit is presented as a suit to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage. Therefore, Article 62 of the Limitation Act 1963 (the Limitation Act) applies. In fact, Article 62 uses the following language: “to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 upon immovable property.” Thus, it takes within its fold not only mortgage suits but any suit to enforce a charge over immovable property. In such cases, the suit may be filed within 12 years from the date when the money sued for becomes due. Hence, the defence of limitation is rejected.
Issue No.6:
11. Defendants 1 to 4 alleged that this is a suit for land and that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the land is situated outside its jurisdiction. The present suit is for the enforcement of monetary obligations secured by a mortgage over land. Consequently, as held in Vikram Bonsle, this is not a suit for land. Moreover, the plaintiff filed the suit along with an application seeking leave to sue (A.No.1098 of 2003). The said application was allowed by this Court. The defendants did not file an application to revoke leave. The exhibits on record evidence that the loan agreement and documents ancillary thereto were executed at Chennai. Therefore, Issue No.6 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue Nos.1, 2 and 4:
12. These issues relate to the borrowings by the first defendant, the guarantee provided by defendants 2 to 4 in respect thereof and whether _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 the revival letters are true and valid. Since all these issues are interrelated, they are dealt with and disposed of jointly. In order to prove that the first defendant borrowed money, the plaintiff exhibited the loan agreement and several documents ancillary thereto as Exs.P1 to P12. The plaintiff also exhibited the statement of account as Ex.P15. Ex.P1 is a promissory note dated 05.07.1996 by which the first defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.100 lakhs with service charges at the rate of 4% per annum from 05.07.1996 until payment in full. It also provides for revision of the above mentioned rate. Ex.P2 is the Loan Agreement dated 05.07.1996 executed by the plaintiff and the first defendant. Clause 1 thereof provides that a term loan of Rs.1 crore would be given by the plaintiff to the first defendant subject to the terms and conditions specified in the loan agreement. Clause 2 thereof draws reference to the Letter of Intent dated 29.03.1996, which is annexed as Schedule II, and made an integral part of the loan agreement. Clause 4 specifies that the loan would be repaid in five annual installments of Rs.20 lakhs each, payable on or before the 31st of March 1998-31st of March 2002. Clause 5 specifies the lending rate of 4% per annum. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006
13. Turning to the guarantors, Ex.P4 is a deed of personal guarantee executed jointly by the second and third defendants. As per clause 3 thereof, in the event of default by the first defendant, the second and third defendants have agreed to pay all amounts payable by the first defendant/borrower. Ex.P5 is a deed of personal guarantee executed by the fourth defendant and is on identical terms as Ex.P4. Thus, Exs.P5 and 5 contradict the contention of learned counsel for defendants 1-4 that the liability of the guarantors is capped at Rs.1 crore and, instead, establish that the guarantors are liable to discharge the debt due from the principal debtor and that such liability is co-extensive with the liability of the borrower. This leads to the question as to the amount payable by defendants 1-4.
14. On perusal of Ex.P15, the said statement evidences the disbursements made by the plaintiff of sums of Rs.50 lacs, Rs.35 lacs and Rs.8.50 lacs [after deducting Rs.1,67,123/- therefrom] on 03.07.1997, 12.03.1998 and 10.02.1999, respectively. On the basis of the above evidence, the borrowing is established. The guarantee provided by defendants 2 to 4 is also established, as stated earlier, by Exs.P4 and 5. With regard to the revival of liability, the plaintiff exhibited the revival letters _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 dated 26.09.1998 and 27.08.2001 as Exs.P17 and P18, respectively. On examining these documents, it is evident that these letters were duly executed and are valid and binding. The above evidence leads to the conclusion that defendants 1-4 are liable to pay the amounts received by them with interest thereon at 4% per annum from the respective date of receipt until repayment. Thus, Issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 4.
Issue No.3
15. Issue No.3 pertains to whether there was an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds in favour of the plaintiff at Chennai on 29.12.1997. The plaintiff exhibited the memorandum of entry evidencing the joint equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and the fifth defendant as Ex.P12. This document discloses that the original title deeds were deposited with the fifth defendant, which is the prior lender. Therefore, when the first defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan, the pari passu agreement dated 30.01.1997(Ex.P11) was executed. This documents establishes that the rights of IDBI/the fifth defendant and the plaintiff over the security by way of immovable and movable assets shall rank pari passu. After perusing _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 this agreement, the first defendant agreed and undertook to share the proceeds from the securities with IDBI and the plaintiff. Forms 8 and 13(Exs.P13 and 14) were lodged thereafter by the first defendant with the Registrar of Companies and the charge was registered in terms of Section 125 of the Companies Act, 1956. In order to qualify as an equitable mortgage, the title deeds of the relevant property should be deposited, either actually or constructively, with the intention to create a mortgage. In this case, the original title deeds were deposited with the fifth defendant and Ex.P11 was executed as evidence of the intention to create a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. In situations wherein more than one loan is availed of by a borrower from banks or financial institutions on the security of the same asset, it is perfectly legitimate and legally valid for an equitable mortgage to be created without physically depositing the original title deeds with the mortgagee. Whether it qualifies as an equitable mortgage is not vital, in any event, because it qualifies, at a minimum, as an enforceable charge in terms of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 100 does not prescribe a particular method to create a charge and a charge holder has all the rights of a simple mortgagee such as the right to bring the charged property for sale and enforce the personal covenant _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.15 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 against the mortgagor. Therefore, Issue No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 4.
Issue No.7:
16. The only issue that remains to be considered is the relief to be granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.1,51,64,353/-. The manner of computation of the sum is contained in the statement of account (Ex.P15). As stated earlier, Ex.P15 evidences the disbursement of a sum of Rs.50 lacs on 02.07.1997, Rs.35 lacs on 11.03.1998 and Rs.8.50 lacs on 08.02.1999. It also reflects that Rs.3,44,844/- was debited towards service charges on 31.03.1999 and Rs.3,74,000/- for the same purpose on 31.03.2000, 31.03.2001 and 31.03.2002. In addition, it reflects the levy of service charges of Rs.93,500/- from 01.04.2002 to 30.06.2002. Apart from the above, it reflects the levy of penal interest of Rs.42,63,872/- up to 30.06.2002. The only credit it reflects is for a sum of Rs.1,67,260/-.
17. The loan agreement between the parties provides for service charges at 4% p.a. This is evident from clause 5 thereof, which reads as under:
“The BORROWER shall, until full repayment of _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.16 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 the whole of the principal sum of the term loan, pay to the Board, service charges on the principal amount of the said term loan outstanding from time to time at a lending rate as fixed by the Board from time to time, presently being 4% per annum, payable in the following manner:
a) The initial service charges for part of the first year upto 31.03.1997 shall be paid by 31.03.1997.
b)The service charges for the second year ending 31st March 1998, and thereafter for each and every succeeding year shall be paid in advance by the 31st day of the month of March in each and every succeeding year thereafter.” While the lending rate was fixed as “4% at present”, none of the documents evidence a revision of the rate. Significantly, none of the bilateral documents evidence an agreement to pay penal interest at 18% per annum or at any other rate. While Ex.P2 includes an undated letter from the first defendant stating that the said defendant undertakes that it will be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 18% p.a. over and above the service charge in case of default, the said term has not been incorporated either in the sanction letter or in the loan agreement executed by the parties. _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.17 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006
18. The fact that penal interest was not stipulated in the sanction letter or loan agreement assumes further significance in light of the judgment in Corporation Bank wherein the Honble Supreme Court concluded that compound interest with quarterly rests should not be levied on loans granted to persons engaged in agriculture. The admitted position is that the first defendant was engaged in floriculture. The project in relation to which the term loan was sanctioned did not take off. In these circumstances, penal interest cannot be levied. However, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the agreed rate of interest at 4% p.a. If such interest is applied to the principal amounts disbursed in three tranches, the amount due and payable on the first tranche of Rs.50,00,000/- is Rs.50,49,315.06 for a period of 25 years plus 89 days running from 02.07.1997 to 27.09.2022. Likewise, the interest payable on the second tranche of Rs.35,00,000/- is Rs.34,37,479.45 for 24 years plus 201 days running from 11.03.1998 to 27.09.2022, and the interest payable on the third tranche of Rs.8,50,000/- is Rs. 8,03,704/- for 23 years plus 232 days running from 08.02.1999 to 27.09.2022. If the principal is added thereto, it aggregates to a sum of Rs.1,86,39,473.85. If credit is given to the payment of Rs.1,67,123, the amount outstanding as on the date of the judgment is Rs.1,84,72,350.85. This amount shall be paid by _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.18 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 defendants 1 to 4 to the plaintiff on or before 31.12.2022. In the event of default, the plaintiff is entitled to take necessary steps to bring the suit schedule property for sale. In such event, the plaintiff is entitled to defray all expenses in relation thereto from the sale proceeds and thereafter appropriate the entire amount outstanding, including further interest on the principal sum from the date of the judgment, from the sale proceeds. Since costs follow the event, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs to cover court fees, lawyer's fees and expenses. A sum of Rs.1,51,169/- was paid as court fee. The plaintiff is entitled to this sum and to a further sum of Rs.2 lacs towards lawyer's fees and expenses. In the aggregate, defendants 1 to 4 shall pay a rounded off sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the plaintiff as costs, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover this sum also from the sale proceeds. If the sale proceeds are insufficient for the above purposes, the decree may be executed against defendants 1-4.
19. In the result, C.S.No.210 of 2006 is decreed by directing defendants 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,84,72,350.85 to the plaintiff on or before 31.12.2022. In the event of default, the plaintiff is entitled to take appropriate steps to bring the suit schedule property for sale and to realize _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.19 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 from the sale proceeds the expenses incurred in bringing the property for sale, the above amount of Rs. 1,84,72,350.85 along with interest accruals on the principal sum at 6% per annum from the date of decree until realisation and costs. If the amount realized from the sale proceeds is insufficient for such purposes, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the decree against defendants 1 to 4.
27.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
kal
Plaintiffs' witnesses : Nil
Defendants' witnesses : Nil
Documents exhibited by the Plaintiff:
Sl.No Exhibits Date Particulars of Documents
1. Ex.P1 05.07.1996 Original Demand Promissory Note
2. Ex.P2 05.07.1996 Original Loan Agreement
3. Ex.P3 05.07.1996 Original Hypothecation Deed
4. Ex.P4 05.07.1996 Original Deed of Continuing Guarantee
5. Ex.P5 18.07.1996 Original Deed of Continuing Guarantee
6. Ex.P6 05.07.1996 Original Deed of undertaking for creation of permanent security
7. Ex.P7 05.07.1996 Original Deed of Undertaking not to alienate _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.20 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 Sl.No Exhibits Date Particulars of Documents
8. Ex.P8 18.07.1996 Original Deed of Undertaking not to alienate
9. Ex.P9 05.07.1996 Original Deed of undertaking for mobilizing additional funds
10. Ex.P10 18.07.1996 Original Deed of undertaking for mobilizing additional funds
11. Ex.P11 30.01.1997 Original Parripassu Agreement
12. Ex.P12 29.12.1997 Original Memorandum of Entry Evidencing Joint Equitable Mortgage. The counsel for the defendant objected for the marking of the document Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 on the ground that the contents and execution of the documents denied. Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 marked with objection, subject to proof and relevancy.
13. Ex.P13 21.02.1997 Original Registrar of Companies Form-8
14. Ex.P14 21.02.1997 Original Registrar of Companies Form-13
15. Ex.P15 30.06.2002 Original Statement of Accounts
16. Ex.P16 15.03.2000 Photocopy of the Lawyer Notice
17. Ex.P17 26.09.1998 Original Revival Letter from Borrower
18. Ex.P18 27.08.2001 Original Revival Letter from Borrower
19. Ex.P19 26.09.1998 Original Revival Letter from the Guarantors
20. Ex.P20 27.08.2001 Original Revival Letter from the Guarantors
21. Ex.P21 From Original Encumbrance Certificate. The 01.01.1990 counsel for the defendant submitted that all to the documents can be marked, subject to 15.12.2003 proof and relevancy. Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 marked subject to proof and relevancy.
Documents exhibited by the Defendants: Nil SKRJ _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.21 of 22 C.S.No.210 of 2006 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J kal Pre-Delivery Judgment in Civil Suit No.210 of 2006 27.09.2022 _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.22 of 22