IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.965 of 2004 in COMPANY PETITION No.13 of 2002 Between: The Official Liquidator High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Liquidator Of M/s.Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Ltd., (in Liqn.) … Petitioner And G.Raghu and four others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.965 of 2004 in COMPANY PETITION No.13 of 2002 ORDER:- 1. This application has been taken out by the Official Liquidator on behalf of M/s.Mamata Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., (in Provisional Liquidation) under Section 446(2) (b) of the Companies’ Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 and 11(b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking a decree for Rs.43,683/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 29.05.2000 till the date of realization. 2 . This Court by order dated 20.03.2002 made in C.P.No.13 of 2002 appointed the Official Liquidator as Provisional Liquidator of M/s.Mamatha Chit Fund (P) limited (In Provisional Liquidation). As per the information in the revised list of debtors of Statement of Affairs furnished by the Ex-Managing Director of the Company (in Provisional Liquidation), the 1st respondent herein is a prized subscriber in T.No.18 of Chit Group No.LP1G and respondent Nos.2 to 4, namely G.Sri Gopal, Jogender Singh and Rajender Singh respectively, stood as guarantors to respondent No.1. The amount due from respondent No.1 was Rs.44,869/- which includes Rs.11,390/- towards other dues and penalty imposed by the company on arrears of subscription dues. The respondents executed joint promissory note apart from agreement of guarantee in respect of chit bearing T.No.18 of chit group No.LP1G. A notice dated 20.06.2003 was issued to respondent No.1 calling upon him to pay the amount due. There is no response from respondent No.1. Hence, this application seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Respondent No.1 died pending the application and his legal representatives came on record as respondent Nos.5 and 6, as per orders in C.A.No.196 of 2005, dated 22.02.2007. 4. Though notice was sent to respondent No.4, it was returned unserved, as early as on 03.8.2004, with an endorsement ‘not claimed’ and hence, the service is deemed to have been effected on respondent No.4. 5 . Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter affidavits resisting the claim of the applicant and so also respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 denied the averments made by the applicant in the application while contending that respondent No.2 did not give personal guarantee, but in the capacity of proprietor of Jawahar House of Travelling Goods, he had given the guarantee and that presently he is not the Proprietor of Jawahar House of Travelling Goods and therefore he is not liable to pay any amount to the applicant. Respondent No.3 also denied his liability to pay the amount claimed by the applicant. 6. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 denied the averments made by the applicant in the application. They contended that they got three brothers and two sisters and their father died about four years back. All their sisters are married and living with their respective husbands. That Veerender Jain died as bachelor and they are not representing his estate. They did not inherit any of his properties and they are not in possession of any of his properties and therefore they are not liable to pay the amount claimed by the applicant. 7. On behalf of the applicant, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 four witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 4. 8. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed additional counter affidavits contending that the documents filed by the applicant are fabricated just before taking steps to file the above application and that their signatures were obtained in blank forms without filling up of the forms and that they signed only as witnesses. 9. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and perused the material brought on record. 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A12 amply prove the claim of the applicant against the respondents and, therefore a direction is required to be given to the respondents to pay the amount claimed by the applicant. 11. Deceased-respondent No.1 was the prized subscriber and whereas respondent Nos.2 to 4 were the guarantors. The prized subscriber-1st respondent died pending the application and his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.2 while being examined as R.W.1 admits of his signing Exs.A1 to A3. He also admits of receiving notices from the Official Liquidator. Respondent No.3 while being examined as R.W.2 admits of his signature on Exs.A1 to A3. Though respondent Nos.2 to 4 disputed of their being as guarantors, the applicant is able to prove that they are guarantors by placing on record Ex.A2-guarantee bond executed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. Ex.A1 is the promissory note executed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. The contention of respondent Nos.2 to 4 that they signed on blank guarantee bond as witnesses has no merit in view of the recitals therein. It is evident from Ex.A2- ageement of guarantee that respondent Nos.2 to 4 stood as guarantors for the prized amount withdrawn by the 1st respondent. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find that the applicant is able to prove the claim. Accordingly, there shall be a decree against the estate of Respondent No.1-Veerendra Jain in the hands of respondent Nos.5 and 6, and against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for Rs.43,683/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 29.05.2000 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. 13. Accordingly, the Company Application is allowed. No order as to costs. _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 4th June 2010 lmv