BHUSHAN MANAPURE 02 August 2017

Guarantor's liability in loan from co-operative society.

Guarantor’s liability in loan from Co-operative society.

Dear members,

My wife along with her female office friend has given a guarantee to a unsecured loan availed by staff ( Mr. X ) from the companie’s staff co-operative society in which my wife is depositing ( as an investment ) monthly Rs. 1K. Mr. X has availed a loan when he was located at Nagpur, however latter on he transferred to another location and after working on new location for few months he resigned. He got the all settlements from the company as either Mr. X or company has not reported his resignation to co-operative society. After almost a year my wife approached society for some reason, at that time my wife made society noticed about the resignation of Mr. X till that time surprisingly society was not aware of default of EMIs of Mr. X. Post which my wife has requested society on mail to refund her total investment /deposits done with society. None of representative as reverted on the concerned matter to long, hence my wife has contacted society representative on phone, he verbally denied for return the investment on account of default of X.

Points to be noted :

When society was not receiving EMIs from X why the not issued a notice to him / guarantors.

When my wife has made them noticed of default event that they have not took appropriate action.

My wife has requested them to send society representative for meeting / collection of loan outstanding from X ( I have recorded Calls as a proof)

Despite of regular follow-ups with society they didn’t bother for recovery of defaulted loan.

I have further confirmed that my wife has not received any notice for default ( in guarantors capacity )

My question are :

How can they hold the investment of my wife against the loan default of X.

Why guarantor is penalized for their inability to recover the defaulted amount. ( not taking proper actions post 90 days )

When EMI to be deducted from salary directly, how they have allow the Mr. X to depart from company.

Can I file a suit against the society for mental harassment and for involving my wife in his wilful default.

Please suggest appropriate remedies to recover the deposited money form society.

Reply Follow

3 Replies

Susen Nath 02 August 2017

Now u r telling aLlandudno the points and questions. But at time of as guarantor sign did u made all with the society? Certainly not. Again u made a sign as a guarantor first thatime person to the society with written documents. So? It is upto u now.

Susen Nath 02 August 2017

Azhagananth (Lawyer) 02 August 2017

The Below Cititation may help you, to sue whom first and how:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1731433/

Kerala High Court

T.J.Paul vs M.B. Vijayaraghavan Nair on 9 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36125 of 2008(A)


1. T.J.PAUL, S/O. T.P. JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.B. VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. AMBIKA VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR,

3. THE AREA MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :09/12/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  W.P.C.No. 36125 of 2008 A
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the guarantor/surety for a loan availed by the first respondent, who is employed by the third respondent, Food Corporation of India. The services of the first respondent has been terminated. Terminal benefits are due to him from the third respondent. The first respondent has not discharged the liability, which he has as the Principal debtor in the transaction, in which the petitioner is a guarantor. The petitioner apprehends that amounts due from the first respondent may be recovered from him as he is one of the guarantors/sureties for the first respondent. Notice has already been received intimating the petitioner of the proposal to recover the amounts from the salary of the petitioner.

2. At this juncture the petitioner has come before this Court. He has admittedly not discharged the liability which the first respondent as principal debtor has. What is the grievance W.P.C.No. 36125 of 2008 of the petitioner? According to the petitioner amounts are due from the third respondent to the first respondent. That is the only asset of the first respondent. If amounts due from the first respondent to a co- operative society, for which loan the petitioner is one of the sureties, is not satisfied by the amounts which are payable to the first respondent by the third respondent the petitioner will be put to great prejudice and hardship.

3. In the meantime, to defeat the interest of the petitioner the second respondent, i.e. the wife of the first respondent, has filed a petition under the Protection of Women from (Domestic Violence) Act and is attempting to take away all the money which is due to the first respondent from the third respondent. It is hence prayed that appropriate direction may be issued to secure the interests of the petitioner.

4. I find no merit whatsoever in the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner is a guarantor/surety for a loan advanced to the first respondent by the workers' co-operative society. The petitioner has not so far discharged the liability. The first respondent has also not W.P.C.No. 36125 of 2008 discharged the liability. If the petitioner has a grievance against the first respondent, he must seek to enforce the claim against the first respondent by a properly instituted suit and seek attachment of the assets of the first respondent in the hands of the third respondent or any other. Without and before doing that the petitioner cannot be permitted to come before this Court with this writ petition and seek to achieve what he could legitimately achieve by filing a suit against the first respondent and by attaching the amounts due to him from the third respondent.

5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to proceed against the first respondent or any assets of the first respondent in the hands of the third respondent or any other in enforcement of the claim, if any, of the petitioner.

(R. BASANT) Judge tm