In an unopposed defamation written suit for money recovery, the Court decreed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for Rs. 9.93 crores along with 8% future interest based on unchallenged documentary evidence of loans, agreements, and a dishonoured cheque.
Decree for Rs. 9,93,27,786.68 with future interest @ 8% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~ 7
PRANESH GUPTA & ANR ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Vaishali Kakra and Mr.Ifran Ahmed, Advocates
versus
JAGDISH BANSILAL KHURANA ..... Defendant Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )
1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.9,93,27,786.68/against the defendant.
2. In the order dated 10.10.2013 Joint Registrar has noticed that affidavit of service has been filed, postal cover sent to the defendants have been received back undelivered either with the refusal report or unclaimed. The defendant was served through publication in the daily Newspaper „Lok Satta‟, Mumbai Edition dated 2.5.2013. The defendant was proceeded ex parte on 18.11.2013. Plaintiff was directed to file ex parte evidence. Plaintiff has filed the evidence of Sh.Pranesh Gupta (plaintiff No.1 / PW1).
3. PW-1 has deposed that he is one of the partners of plaintiff No. 2. The true copies of Forms „A‟ & „B‟ issued by the Registrar of Firms in respect of the plaintiff No.2 firm are exhibited as EX PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 ,
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 1 of 10
respectively.
4. PW-1 has deposed that the defendant had approached plaintiff No.1 for the grant of loans from time to time. Plaintiff No.1 on the aforesaid requests of the defendant granted loans to the defendant through cheques/RTGS for a total sum of Rs.4,83,75,000/- (Rupees four crores eighty three lacs seventy five thousand only) from time to time, as detailed in the Statement of Account.
5. It is also deposed by PW-1 that the defendant as borrower signed and executed the following documents for grant of loans from time to time:-
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 2 of 10
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 3 of 10
Supplementary Agreement dated 24.09.2008 is exhibited as EX PW1/8 . The same also bears signatures of the deponent.
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 4 of 10
| “a. | Rs. 60,00,000/- lacs on 16.07.2008 vide Pay Order No. “949775” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
|---|---|
| b. | Rs. 15,00,000/- on 01.08.2008 vide Cheque No.“546446” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| c. | Rs. 20,00,000/- on 07.08.2008 vide Cheque No.“948353” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| d. | Rs. 20,00,000/- on 12.08.2008 vide Pay Order No. “948363” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| e. | Rs. 3,50,000/- on 19.08.2008 vide Cheque No.“948404” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| f. | Rs. 20,00,000/- on 22.08.2008 vide Cheque No.“948436” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| g. | Rs. 30,00,000/- on 26.08.2008 vide Cheque No.“947534” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| h. | Rs. 20,00,000/- on 01.09.2008 vide Cheque No.“947536” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| i. | Rs. 25,00,000/- on 01.09.2008 vide Cheque No.“948417” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| j. | Rs. 50,00,000/- on 09.09.2008 vide Cheque No.“948378” drawn on State Bank of Indore. |
| k. | Rs. 60,00,000/- on 24.09.2008 vide Cheque No.“303726” by RTGS through State Bank of India. |
| l. | Rs. 40,00,000/- on 24.09.2008 vide Cheque No.“303727” by RTGS through State Bank of India. |
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 5 of 10
The Statement of the account of State Bank of Indore is EX PW1/50.
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 6 of 10
for realization and the same shall be honoured on its presentation, the Cheque No. 530735 dated 07.01.2011 for a sum of Rs. 8,50,00,000/which has been annexed herewith as EX. PW1/11. Plaintiff No.1, believing the aforesaid representation of the defendant to be true, deposited the aforesaid Cheque No.530735 dated 07.01.2011 with his banker State Bank of India, Green Park, New Delhi and the same was returned back dishonoured by the banker of the defendant i.e. ICICI Bank through its service branch at Jhandewalan, New Delhi, when presented for encashment, with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. The aforesaid information of dishonour of the aforesaid Cheque No.530735 dated 07.01.2011 was received by plaintiff No.1 through his banker i.e. State Bank of India, S-31, Green Park, New Delhi, vide Return Memo Report dated 27.01.2011, the aforesaid Cheque No. 530735 dated 07.01.2011 which have been exhibited as EX. PW1/12 and EX. PW1/13 respectively.
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 7 of 10
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 8 of 10
aforesaid loans. The statement of account of the plaintiff of the account of the defendant being maintained in the regular course of business is true and correct and shows the correct debits and credits. The same stands duly certified under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, 1872 by Sh.Vipin Kumar, System Operator and Senior Accountant of the plaintiffs. The statement of account is exhibited as Ex.PW1/51.
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 9 of 10
been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/50 . The plaintiff has also established that a cheque in the sum of Rs.8.50 crores was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiffs towards part payment of the outstanding amount, which would show that the defendant admitted its outstandings. The cheque no.530735 dated 7.1.2011 for a sum of Rs.8.50 crores has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/11 . The aforesaid cheque was deposited, however, the same was returned with the report “Funds Insufficient”. The said cheque and the return memo report have been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/12 and Ex.PW1/13; a legal notice issued and the courier receipts have been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/14 and Ex.PW-1/33 respectively.
G.S.SISTANI, J
MAY 23, 2014 ssn /pdf
CS(OS) 1979/2011 Page 10 of 10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint was maintainable for recovery of loans granted through cheques and RTGS transfers supported by executed agreements.
Whether the statement of account certified under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act reliably established the amount due.
Whether the suit should be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs for the principal sum and accrued interest.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.S. Sistani
As recorded by the court registry
A civil suit filed on the original side of a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
