Dismissed

C.Baskaran v. Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd.

Madras HC15 Dec 2020CRP/1293/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside an order rejecting leave to defend a money recovery suit. The Court held that the petitioner, who resigned but did not notify the bank of his retirement, remained personally liable for the company debt.

What did the court decide?

Crim. Rev. Petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs awarded.

C.Baskaran Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP(NPD)No.1293 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 08.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

CRP(NPD)No.1293 of 2016
CMP.No.7243 of 2016
(Through Video Conferencing)
C.Baskaran Petitioner
Vs
Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited
Mount Road, Chennai-2 Respondent
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
06.07.2015, made in IA.No.8591 of 2015 in OS.No.6531 of 2014, by the XII
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Ilango For Respondent : Mr.K.Rajasekaran

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 06.07.2015, made in IA.No.8591 of 2015 in OS.No.6531 of 2014, by the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶10

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

¶11

(a) The 3rd Defendant is the Petitioner and the Plaintiff Bank is the

¶12

1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

CRP(NPD)No.1293 of 2016

¶14

Respondent. The suit was filed for recovery of money with interest from the Defendants. The 3rd Defendant has filed the present IA, seeking unconditional leave to defend the case and by the impugned order, the said IA was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 3rd Defendant.

¶15

This court heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is not the Director of the Company since the Petitioner has resigned in 2013 itself and that the Petitioner is not personally liable for the loan secured and that he has no knowledge of the affairs of the Company and that it is the 2nd Defendant who is liable for the loan and without considering those aspects, the court below erred in dismissing the IA and hence, this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

¶17

The learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that at the time of availing loan, the 3rd Defendant was a partner in the Company and that he is trying to evade liability under the pretext that the Company was taken by a Private Limited Company and that the 3rd Defendant, as partner of the Company, in his individual capacity is jointly and severally liable and considering those aspects, the court below has rightly rejected the claim of the 3rd Defendant and therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is to be dismissed.

¶18

This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also carefully perused the materials

¶19

2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

CRP(NPD)No.1293 of 2016

¶21

placed on record.

¶22

The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner is liable for the loan secured or not. The contention of the Petitioner is that he is not liable for the loan. On the other hand, it is the claim of the Respondent that as partner of the Company, the Petitioner, in his individual capacity is jointly and severally liable.

¶23

It is seen from the evidence that admittedly the Petitioner was a partner of the 1st Defendant Company till 4.3.2013, particularly, at the time of borrowing loan. While so, he is legally bound to discharge the debt. Further, there is no evidence to show that he has given any public notice about his retirement from the Company and that he has also informed about the same to the Bank. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he is not liable for the loan secured cannot be accepted. Considering the evidence in a proper and perspective manner, the court below has rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioner. Further, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is to be dismissed.

¶24

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.

¶25

15.12.2020

¶26

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm

¶27

3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

CRP(NPD)No.1293 of 2016

¶29

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶30

Srcm

¶31

To The XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶32

Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(PD)No.1293 of 2016

¶33

15.12.2020

¶34

4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

C.Baskaran v. Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Baskaran v. Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Muthuswamy Vs Subramani

M.Pandiyan,S/O.Munikannu Vs Tmt.Tamilarasi

Subitha Vs Sathish Kumar

D.Kuppan Vs M/S Binny Limited

R.Nowpadmal Vs N.Balu

P.Prasanth Vs C.Krishnaveni