Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. But Ex.P 3 letter of authority refers to the board resolution passed on 22-06-2022. Therefore mere non production of board resolution by the complainant, is not a reason to hold that the PW 1 is not having authority to represent the complainant. The letter of authority clearly shows that as per the board resolution PW 1 is authorized to represent the complainant company.

10. The PW 1 has deposed that the Golden Curve, a partnership firm set up with primary objective of trading the agri related commodities including bananas. The accused is also one of the partner of the said firm Golden Curve. It is the case of the complainant that vide loan agreement dated 18.03.2023 a term loan of INR 2,00,00,000/- with interest @ 18% has been availed by Golden Curve (Partnership Firm). The complainant has produced the e-signed copy of the loan agreement as Ex.P 4. The complainant has also produced the Audit Trial substantiating the process of execution of loan agreement by affixing e-signatures by the parties with Hash value and it is marked as Ex.P 5. As per the terms of loan agreement, accused, who is also the partner of the Golden Curve, stood as Guarantor in his personal capacity, towards C.C.No.17053/2024 said credit facility and executed a Deed of Guarantee on 18-03- 2023 in terms of which the accused agreed to repay the amount covered under the terms of loan agreement to the complainant. The complainant has produced the e-signed copy of the Guarantee agreement as Ex.P 6. In the schedule 1 of the Guarantee agreement the details of Guarantors is given and the name of accused found place in Guarantor 3 in the schedule 1 of Guarantee agreement and the accused has also affixed his digital signature to the Guarantee agreement. The complainant has also produced the Audit Trial substantiating the process of execution of loan agreement by affixing e-signatures by the parties with Hash value and it is marked as Ex.P 7. As per the terms an agreement 4.6 the partners shall give personal guarantee to the loan of the firm. It is the case of the complainant that Golden Curve has failed to repay the loan in terms of the loan agreement and committed default. As per the Deed of Guarantee the the guarantors are jointly, severally liable to pay the due amount on demand by the complainant. As per the terms of Guarantee agreement 2.1 the Guarantors shall pay the due amount with in 7 days of demand notice. It is stated that following default in loan repayments the complainant initiated guarantee invocation process by issuing the notice dated 14.02.2024 to the accused through e mail.

15. Therefore in view of the principles laid down in these decisions the onus is on the accused to rebut the presumption existing in favour of the complainant. The accused has not issued any reply at the initial stage at the time of service of the legal notice. The defence of the accused is first disclosed in the cross examination of PW 1.

16. The defence of the accused is brought on record by way of cross examination of PW 1. In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused denied proper execution of loan documents and Guarantee agreement. He has taken the contention that without following provisions of section 35 of Information Technology Act the loan documents were executed. As discussed above the complainant has produced e-signed loan agreement and Guarantee agreement with Adit trial as per Ex.P 4 to 7. The complainant by producing Audit Trial providing details of process of execution of e-document with Hash value as per Ex.P 5 and P 7, has prima-facie established due execution of the documents. In the cross examination of PW 1 also at one stretch C.C.No.17053/2024 accused has admitted availment of the loan by Golden Curve and he stood as surety to the loan availed and he issued the cheques at the time of loan transactions for security and at another stretch has contended that he has not signed guarantee agreement. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has admitted that Golden Curve has availed loan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and he stood as Guarantor to the said loan by executing Guarantee agreement. Thus he has admitted the loan transaction. The PW 1 has denied all such suggestions of accused. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW 1 to to doubt the fact of availment of the loan by Golden Curve and the accused has stood as Guarantee to the loan by execution Guarantee agreement. In the evidence of accused as DW 1 he has produced the judgment of Hon'ble City Civil Court in Com.O.S 712/2024, wherein the Hon'ble City Civil court has dismissed the suit of the complainant for recovery of money in respect of the loan availed by Golden Curve on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved execution of Loan documents in the Digital mode and not produced documents for disbursement of loan and not produced the statement of accounts ect. With regard to this judgment the complainant during arguments submitted that the accused who examined as DW 1 is not appeared for cross examination to question him about the C.C.No.17053/2024 document and the evidence of DW1 is discarded for his non appearance. Therefore said document cannot be considered. He has also submitted that he has challenged said judgment before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Appeal and it is not attained finality. To question about said aspect he has not got opportunity to cross examine DW 1 and elicit said facts. In the cross examination of PW 1 the accused has not asked about said judgment to the PW1. Therefore, in view of above facts, the Ex.D I Judgment in Com.OS 712/2024 cannot be considered as evidence as this document is not tested by cross examination.