Skip to main content

Suing directors for loan recovery

The Supreme Court last week ruled that though a mortgage of assets of a company which failed to return a loan may have come to an end with their sale, the contract of indemnity with regard to the loan would continue. They are independent contracts. The directors who stood guarantee will still be liable to return the full loan.

Therefore, the financial institution which proceeded against the borrower firm can sue it and the guarantors for recovery of the balance of the loan if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to satisfy the claims of the secured creditors. The court reconciled two of its earlier judgments which were apparently contradictory in the new judgment, Deepak Bhandari vs Himachal Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation. In this case, the corporation issued recall notice to the firm in 1990 and sold the assets in 1994. But the amount recovered was not sufficient to meet the claims of the corporation and another secured creditor.

Therefore, the directors of the firm were sued in the high court in 1994 for the balance of the dues. They opposed it arguing that the suit was beyond the time limit as the recall notice was in 1990 and the suit was filed four years later. It should have been within three years according to the law of limitation. The high court rejected the contention. One director appealed, but the Supreme Court upheld the high court view and asserted that the period of limitation starts from the date when the assets were sold (1994) and not when the recall notice was given (1990).

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/suing-directors-for-loan-recovery-114020200781_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more