Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 26542 of 2008)

PUNJAB & SIND BANK                      APPELLANT                                 VERSUS

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS    RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-bank is aggrieved by the impugned  judgment dated 07.04.2008 of the High Court in C.W.P.  No. 7730 of 2007.  The appellant had challenged the  order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery  Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Misc. Appeal No.134  of 2006 whereby the respondent No.2 herein had been  ordered to be deleted as a defendant/guarantor in the  Original Application No.343/2004, pending before the  Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.

1

Page 2

3. The High Court at page 7 of the impugned judgment  has held as follows :

“From the above pleadings of the parties, it is  crystal  clear  that  the  bank  has  admitted  that  respondent  No.2  had  resigned  from  the  Board  of  Director  of  respondent  No.3-Company  and  another  Director has executed a fresh guarantee substituting  him.   Thus,  it  does  not  lie  in  the  mouth  of  the  petitioner bank to say that respondent No.2 is not  absolved  of  his  liability  even  from  the  documents  placed on record.  The stand of the petitioner bank  to  the effect  that the  guarantee deed  executed by  respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 13.5.2003 was additional  guarantee,  is  falsified  from  fresh  guarantee  deed,  executed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, which shows that  they had executed this guarantee deed for a sum of  Rs.6,70,51,800.85  Ps.,  the  exact  amount,  which  was  outstanding on that day.

We  also  find  that  the  loan  amount  of  the  petitioner  bank  has  been  secured  by  respondent  company  by  executing  mortgage  deeds  of  sufficient  valuable properties.  In addition personal guarantees  have also been executed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.”

4 The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant submits that as a matter of fact, there is  no  guarantee  furnished  by  anybody  substituting  the  guarantee  furnished  by  respondent  No.2.   Learned  senior counsel for the Bank submits that from other  proceedings before the Tribunal, it is clear that one  Mr.  Sharanpal  Singh  Juneja  had  executed  a  fresh  guarantee  in place  of respondent  No.2.  Since the  High Court has proceeded on the basis that there is  already  a  guarantee  executed  by  Shri  Juneja  substituting the respondent No.2, we find there is an  error apparent on the face of the record for which  

2

Page 3

the appellant has to approach the High Court itself  by way of an application for review.  Therefore, we  dispose of this appeal permitting the appellant to  move an appropriate application for review.  We make  it  clear that  in case  review application  is filed  within  a  month  from  today,  the  same  shall  not  be  dismissed  on  the  ground  of  limitation  since  the  appellant has been prosecuting the case before this  Court.

5 We  make it  clear that  if there  are any  other  errors which have crept in the impugned judgment of  the High Court, it will be open to the appellant to  take out the same in the review application.

6 We also make it clear that it will be open to the  respondent No.2 to take up all available contentions  before the High Court.  

7. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to  costs.

.................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

....................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 16, 2016

3