Bombay High Court Allows Recovery Suit Against Guarantor in Tripartite Agreement for Supply of Steel. Second Defendant Held Liable as Guarantor for Payment of Goods Supplied to First Defendant.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 141
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, M/s. Ashwin Industrial Corp., filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,90,914.14 with interest against Globe Steerings Ltd (defendant no.1) and another defendant (defendant no.2). The plaintiff supplied tools and alloy steels to defendant no.1 for manufacturing steel gears for defendant no.2. In May 1981, a tripartite arrangement was made where defendant no.2 guaranteed payment for goods supplied. The plaintiff supplied goods but payment was not made. The court found that defendant no.2, as guarantor, is liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.1,29,574.18 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The suit was decreed against defendant no.2.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Guarantee - Tripartite Agreement - Liability of Guarantor - The plaintiff supplied goods to the first defendant based on the assurance that the second defendant would pay. The court held that the second defendant, having guaranteed payment, is liable to pay the outstanding amount with interest. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the second defendant is liable as a guarantor for the payment of goods supplied by the plaintiff to the first defendant under a tripartite arrangement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Suit decreed against defendant no.2 for Rs.1,29,574.18 with interest at 18% p.a. from date of suit till realization.

Law Points

  • Guarantee
  • Tripartite Agreement
  • Liability of Guarantor
  • Recovery of Debt
  • Interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 139

Suit No. 1305 of 1984

2005-08-03

S.U. Kamdar, J.

K.H. Modi with Mr. Hatim i/b. N.K. and Sabir for the plaintiffs; S. Deshmukh i/b. B.K. and Girdharlal for defendant no.2

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of money

Remedy Sought

Recovery of Rs.1,90,914.14 with interest at 18% p.a.

Filing Reason

Non-payment for goods supplied under a tripartite arrangement

Issues

Whether the second defendant is liable as a guarantor for the payment of goods supplied by the plaintiff to the first defendant under a tripartite arrangement.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that defendant no.2 guaranteed payment for goods supplied to defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 contested liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant, having guaranteed payment under a tripartite arrangement, is liable to pay the outstanding amount with interest.

Judgment Excerpts

The present suit is filed for the recovery of sum of Rs.1,90,914.14/- with further interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,29,574.18/- at the rate of 18% p.a. till payment and or realization.

Procedural History

Suit filed in 1984; judgment delivered on 3rd August 2005.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree for Husband in Mohomedan Law Case — Wife’s Cruelty Defence Rejected as Unsubstantiated. Wife Failed to Prove Cruelty Under Section 281(2) of Mohomedan Law to Defeat Husband’s Suit ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Property Tax Reassessment by Municipal Corporation. Reassessment After 30 Years Without Notice and Hearing Violates Section 154 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Principles of Natural...