Gujarat High Court
Union Bank Of India vs Vishal Hydrowind Private Ltd & on 9 January, 2018
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
O/COMP/162/2009 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COMPANY PETITION NO. 162 of 2009
With
COMPANY PETITION NO. 163 of 2009
With
COMPANY PETITION NO. 164 of 2009
==========================================================
UNION BANK OF INDIA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
VISHAL HYDROWIND PRIVATE LTD & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVANG D TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHAILEE S MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 09/01/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Company petition No.163 of 2009 is filed against the company named M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. - the borrower of the loan from the petitioner - bank. The petition is admitted and is awaiting order for advertisement of the petition.
2. The Company Petitions No.162 of 2009 and 164 of 2009 are filed against M/s. Vishal Hydrowind Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vishal Plastomer Pvt. Ltd. respectively. They are stated to be the guarantors of the loan advanced by the petitioner - bank to the borrower company.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Trivedi appearing for the petitioner in Company Petitions No.162 of 2009 and 164 of 2009 submitted that as per the deed of guarantee executed by and on behalf of the respondent - company in each of the petitions, on borrower company failing to pay any of the instalments for repayment of the loan and on Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Jan 09 23:31:18 IST 2018 O/COMP/162/2009 ORDER petitioner demanding the repayment from the guarantors, the guarantors are under obligations to pay entire principal amount of loan together with the interest and cost charges. Mr.Trivedi submitted that since the borrower company did not repay the loan amount, the petitioner - bank demanded the repayment from the guarantors - respondent companies under the deed of guarantee executed by them, however, they failed to pay any amount to the petitioner - bank and since they are unable to pay their debts to the petitioner - bank of more than Rs.33 crores, the Court may admit the petition and pass further orders in the matter.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the respondent - companies on the other hand submitted that under the deed of guarantee, the guarantee given for repayment of the loan is only to the lead bank, i.e., State Bank of India on borrower failing to repay the loan amount to it but there is no liability of the respondent - companies under the deed of guarantee to be discharged for repayment of the loan advanced to the borrower so far as the petitioner bank is concerned.
5. The Court, having heard learned advocates and having gone through the deed of guarantee, prima facie, finds that the meaning of lead bank given in the deed of guarantee is not possible to be read in restrictive manner but it appears that it covers the consortium of banks including the petitioner - bank and as provided in the guarantee, the respondent - companies may be liable to make full payment of the loan amount to the petitioner - bank and other banks on borrower committing default in making repayment of loan to any bank which falls within the lead bank. On such prima facie consideration, the Court finds that the Company Petitions No.162 of 2009 and 164 of 2009 also require consideration. Hence, they are admitted. The order for advertisement of the petitions is deferred till 31st January, 2018.
(C.L.SONI, J.)
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Jan 09 23:31:18 IST 2018
O/COMP/162/2009 ORDER
Gupta*
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Jan 09 23:31:18 IST 2018