Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 533 (MAD)

M. v. Hari Ram VS Chief Manager, UCO Bank

2014-02-27

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
JUDGMENT K. Kalyana Sundaram, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the unnumbered application filed to restore I.A.No.1984 of 2000 and thereafter to dispose of I.A.No.1984 of 2000 on merits. 2. M/s. Easy Track India Pvt. Ltd., had availed loan facilities from the first respondent – Bank in the year 1988. Due to the default in repaying the loan amount, the first respondent-Bank instituted a suit before the original side of this Court in C.S.No.886 of 1991 against the company and ten other persons. The petitioner herein is the eighth defendant in the said suit. After constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the suit was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.66 of 1997. In the said Transfer Application, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.1984 of 2000 to discharge him from the liability. But subsequently, the petition was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.09.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.878 of 2002 to restore the I.A.No.1984 of 2000. The Tribunal, by order dated 10.06.2009, passed a final order in the Transfer Application in favour of the first respondent – Bank making all the defendants liable for the liability of the borrower company. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an application I.A.No.547 of 2009 to set aside the final order passed in the Transfer Application contending that it was an ex parte one, which came to be dismissed on 06.09.2010. The petitioner challenged the order in an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A.No.634 of 2010. But, later, the petitioner withdrew the appeal on 13.11.2013 and thereupon filed the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a Director of the Company, namely, Easy Track India Pvt. Ltd., but he was impleaded as defendant in the suit only on the communication sent by the company stating that he was also made as a Director of the company. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, unless the petitioner accepted the Directorship, he cannot be treated as Director of the Company nor made liable to pay the debts of the company. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, unless the petitioner accepted the Directorship, he cannot be treated as Director of the Company nor made liable to pay the debts of the company. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner to discharge from the liability was not decided on merits and therefore, he is entitled for a direction in this Writ Petition. 6. It is noted that the Application I.A.No.1984 of 2000 was dismissed in the year 2001 itself and a final order in the Transfer Application was passed on 10.06.2009. Unless the order passed in the Transfer Application is set aside, the petitioner is not entitled for hearing the application in I.A.No.1984 of 2000. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for a direction in this Writ Petition. Moreover, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition after a lapse of 12 years seeking direction to dispose of the I.A.No.1984 of 2000. Curiously, the petitioner has not offered any explanation for the delay, hence the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches also. 7. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.