Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4577 (MAD)

S. Srinivasan v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. , & Another

2008-12-08

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V.DHANAPALAN

body2008
Judgment : S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner, Managing Director of M/s M.A.Tex Private Limited (Company under liquidation for short) preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. In the said appeal, the petitioner, who was the second defendant before the DRT filed I.A.No.231 of 2008 in U.R.A.No.33/2007 to implead the Company as second appellant, which was shown as the second respondent before the appellate Tribunal. Karnataka Bank Limited, which was the applicant before the DRT, Coimbatore and the first respondent before the appellate Tribunal, objected the petition for transposing the company as one of the appellant on the ground that the Company may prefer a separate appeal having different entity. The appellate Tribunal, Chennai, by impugned order dated 05.08.2008 have rejected the petition to transpose the company as the second appellant. The petitioner who was the second defendant/appellant before the appellate Tribunal, has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner, 2nd defendant before the DRT, Coimbatore, his wife, 3rd defendant before the said Tribunal are the guarantors. The Company is the borrower. As the company is under liquidation, the DRT, passed an order against the company, 2nd defendant (petitioner and guarantor) and 3rd defendant (his wife-guarantor). 3. From the impugned order, it will be evident that the said fact has been accepted by the appellate Tribunal, but mainly on the ground that the cause of action for filing appeal is different from the cause of action of the Company, the petition for transposing the Company as the second appellant has been rejected, though it has been accepted that the Company can file a separate appeal against the order passed by DRT. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has taken a similar plea as was taken before the appellate Tribunal as mentioned above. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions and the records. 6. Admittedly, both the borrower and the guarantors are affected with the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. The borrower as well as the appellate Tribunal, both of them have accepted that they can challenge the order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. But only plea taken is that it should be challenged by filing a separate appeal. 6. Admittedly, both the borrower and the guarantors are affected with the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. The borrower as well as the appellate Tribunal, both of them have accepted that they can challenge the order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. But only plea taken is that it should be challenged by filing a separate appeal. We find no force in such argument, as it is always open to the borrower and guarantor to join together to challenge a common order passed by DRT, the borrower having granted loan by the Bank and guarantor having given guarantee with regard to the said loan. 7. We accordingly set aside the order dated 05.08.2008 passed by the appellate Tribunal, Chennai and remit the case to the appellate Tribunal with a direction to transpose the Company as second appellant to the appeal pending before it. It is expected that the parties will co-operate before the appellate Tribunal, which will expedite and pass final order in the appeal at an early date. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above said direction. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.