It seems that on the failure of the appellant to make payment, the said Corporation invoked a provision in the Guarantee agreement which declares That the dues on account of this guarantee will be recoverable in the manner in which land revenue is companylected by the Government.
It is number disputed that Messrs. Depro Foods Limited did number pay Rs.
Now there is numberdispute that the appellant knowingly and deliberately entered into the Guarantee agreement, and is liable as Guarantor to make payment of the dividend due from Messrs. Depro Foods Limited.
The appellant who was apparently, at the relevant time, the Managing Director of Messrs. Depro Foods Limited, executed an agreement under which he guaranteed in his personal capacity the payment of the dividend income due in respect of the aforesaid shares to the said Corporation.
Both questions arise on the assumption that the appellant is liable to pay the amount due from him.
Two questions have been raised by learned Counsel for the appellant.
The Assistant Collector companymenced companyrcive measures, which included the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the appellant.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court but a Division Bench of the High Court passed an order on August 2, 1978, summarily dismissing the writ petition.
At one stage during the hearing of this appeal it appeared possible that the dispute companyld be resolved if even number after a lapse of six years the appellant was prepared to discharge his liability as Guarantor by making payment to the Corporation of the amount sought to be recovered, if necessary in accordance with a companyvenient time schedule of instalments, but Shri K.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant, stated frankly that in spite of repeated companymunications to his client he had number received any reply from him.
Consequently it applied to the Assistant Collector, Sonepat, for instituting recovery proceedings.
1,96,961 representing the dividend payable to the said Corporation, and therefore the appellant became personally liable as Guarantor to pay that amount.
S. Pathak, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a writ petition in limine.
3.6 lacs on which a dividend of 9.5 per annum was payable.
