C.R. No. 4268 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4268 of 2010 Date of Decision: 21.09.2010 M/s. Sona Castings Pvt. Ltd. and another .... Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar Goyal and others ... Respondents C.R. No. 3137 of 2010 M/s. Sona Castings Pvt. Ltd. and another .... Petitioners Versus Satish Kumar Goyal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioners – defendants No. 3 and 4 have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 17.11.2009 passed by Civil C.R. No. 4268 of 2010 2 Judge (Jr. Divn.) Amloh as well as judgment and order dated 12.6.2010 passed by District Judge Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the application moved by the plaintiff seeking ad interim injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was allowed restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 for providing financial assistance to defendant No. 3 on the basis of personal guarantee furnished by the plaintiff. In nutshell brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff has filed suit inter alia alleging that plaintiff was one of the Director of defendant No. 3 - M/s. Sona Castings Pvt. Ltd.; plaintiff stood guarantor and has furnished his personal guarantee and sale deed of House No. 112 Sector 4-D, Mandi Gobindgarh in equitable mortgage in lieu of Cash Credit Limit and L/C Limit to defendant No. 1; defendant No. 4 started doing bungling/cheating in the accounts of the companies and engulfed a huge amount, hence, defendant No. 4 was directed to be removed from the post of Directorship; defendant No. 4 filed a Civil Suit on 8.6.2007 and also filed a Company Petition before the Company Law Board at New Delhi; Company Law Board directed that the defendant No. 4 may continue with the business but he has to get the signatures on all the transactions of the Company by one of the Directors; After some time defendant No. 4 withdrew the Civil Suit as well as Company Law Petition; Defendant No. 4 has been doing bungling of huge amount of company against interest of the plaintiff and other share holders and has not furnished complete accounts and was not getting the same audited, hence, plaintiff feeling aggrieved of the behaviour and conduct of defendant No. 4 has written letter dated 9.6.2007 to defendants No. 1 and 2 - Bank C.R. No. 4268 of 2010 3 making request that he should be allowed to withdraw his personal guarantee; Bank replied the letter of the plaintiff dated 9.6.2007 vide letter dated 2.7.2007 saying that his security/guarantee can not be released/revoked till the accounts of defendant No. 3- Company is adjusted in full; despite of writing by the plaintiff revoking/releasing his guarantee defendants No. 1 and 2 – Bank has been permitting the defendants No. 3 and 4 to use the limit/financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 4 crores, contrary to the letter submitted by the plaintiff. Hence, cause of action arises for filing the suit. Undisputedly suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 only impleading defendants No. 3 and 4 as proforma defendants. Undisputedly ad interim injunction application was moved seeking injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 prohibiting them not to provide any financial assistance on the basis of guarantee furnished by the plaintiff which plaintiff has revoked. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3/Bank stated at the Bar that Bank is not feeling aggrieved from the impugned orders, hence, Bank does not intend to challenge the same. He further stated that Bank shall be at liberty to recover the already disbursed loan amount pursuant to the guarantee furnished by the plaintiff against the plaintiff being guarantor. He further contends that for the past transaction guarantee can never be revoked. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 further stated that since guarantor has revoked his guarantee hence Bank shall not allow the borrower to withdraw any further amount in view of the injunction order passed by the Courts below. C.R. No. 4268 of 2010 4 Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that in view of Section 130 of Contract Act he can withdraw his Bank guarantee for further transactions and the movement he withdrew his guarantee, Bank is not competent to permit defendants No. 3 and 4 to use cash credit. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that as on 9.6.2007 the date when plaintiff withdrew his guarantee, the balance amount was only Rs. 2,06,90,390.42 and if Bank permits defendants No. 3 and 4 to operate the accounts the liability may increase which would not be justified in view of the withdrawal of the guarantee w.e.f. 9.6.2007. It is further stated by learned counsel for the plaintiff that Bank is well within its jurisdiction not to permit defendants No. 3 and 4 to operate the Bank account in view of the revocation of the guarantee by the plaintiff. In view of the fact that aggrieved persons i.e. defendants No. 1 and 2 against whom ad interim injunction was issued are not interested in challenging the impugned order. I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in a petition filed by defendants No. 3 and 4. Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 21.09.2010 JUDGE reena