1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 4442 OF 1999 Vijay Bank .. Plaintiff V/s M/s Alliance Business Credit Ltd. & Anr. .. Defendants Mr.S.A. Shetty for the plaintiff. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. None present for the defendants. 2. The plaintiff is a nationalised bank. The defendant no.1 is a public limited company and the defendant no.2 is a director of the defendant no.1. At the request of the defendants, the plaintiff advanced two loans for the amounts of Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 executed the promissory note and other security documents. As the defendants failed and neglected to pay the loan, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the amount. 2 3. Despite service of writ of summons, the defendants have not filed appearance. The suit is therefore listed on board for exparte decree. 4. The plaintiff has produced on record the xerox copies of the original documents and has filed the affidavit of Mrs. Shambhavi Prakash Shetty, Manager, Asset Recovery Management Branch of the plaintiff. In her affidavit, Mrs. Shetty has stated that the original documents are misplaced and the xerox copies are the true copies. The plaintiff is permitted to adduce the secondary evidence in the form of xerox copies in view of the loss of original documents. 5. The plaintiff has also filed affidavit of Mrs. Shambhavi Prakash Shetty in lieu of examination in chief. By her affidavit, the plaintiff has proved the execution of the documents and has also proved the advance of loan to the defendant no.1. The evidence of the plaintiff is accepted. 6. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the loan was borrowed by the defendant no.1 which is a public limited company. The defendant no.2, who is a director of the defendant no.1, is not personally liable for the loan borrowed by the company. Nothing is brought on record to show that the defendant no.2 is personally liable either as a guarantor or otherwise. In my 3 view, therefore, the defendant no.2 is not liable and the suit against the defendant no.2 is accordingly dismissed. 8. For these reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) with costs against the defendant no.1 only. The suit against the defendant no.2 is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)