Allowed

Shanti Devi Galada v. G.Sheila Raju and Another

Madras HC19 Apr 2018CS/49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court decreed a suit filed for recovery of loan proceeds. With unchallenged evidence of a Pro-note and default, the defendants were directed to pay the principal sum along with interest calculated at statutory fruit rates rather than the claimed 24%, alongside suit costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.25,76,916/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from filing date and 6% from judgment date till realization, along with costs.

Shanti Devi Galada Vs G.Sheila Raju and Another — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

C.S.No.49 of 2016
Mrs. Shanti Devi Galada
W/o Mr. Ashok Galada
Old No.4, New No.7
Shaffee Mohammed Road,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai 600006. ... Plaintiff
//vs//
1. Mrs. G. Sheila Raju
2. Mr. G.M.K. Raju ... Defendants

¶7

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code read with Order IV Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules for directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,76,916/alongwith an interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date or realization and for costs of the suit.

¶8

For Plaintiff : Mr. V.S. Senthilkumar

¶9

For Defendants : No appearance

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.25,76,916/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendnats have borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as loan and they have executed pro-note on 21.02.2011 and agreed to pay the loan amount in 36 instalments. However, they have paid only 6 instalments on 22.03.2011, 21.04.2011, 20.06.2011, 11.10.2011, 11.01.2012, 03.08.2012 and 12.01.2013. Thereafter, they committed default. The defendants remained exparte.

¶14

The plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the Pro-note dated 21.02.2011 issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that the original pro-note has filed in the proceedings under the 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Ex.P.2 dated 21.02.2011 is voucher signed by the 1^st defendant for receipt of payment of Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.P.3 letter addressed by the 1^st defendant not only proves the loan transaction but also proves the acknowledgment of loan availed in writing. Legal notice also sent to the 1^st defendant under Ex.P.4.

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

Account statement with regard to the loan transaction maintained by the plaintiff is Ex.P.5.

¶18

The evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged and the documents marked on the side of the plaintiff also clearly prove the loan transaction and default on the part of the defendants. As the evidence adduced and the documents marked by the plaintiff remain unchallenged, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has proved her claim.

¶19

Accordingly, the suit is decreed directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.25,76,916/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of judgment. Thereafter, at the rate of 6% from the date of judgment till the date of realisation, with costs.

¶20

19.04.2018

¶21

Speaking / Non-speaking Order

¶22

Index : Yes/No

¶23

ggs

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ggs

C.S.No.49 of 2016

19.04.2018

http://www.judis.nic.in

Shanti Devi Galada v. G.Sheila Raju and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi Galada v. G.Sheila Raju and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sir John Demonte Trust Vs

Minor of Kridev Vs

Will (4) of M.Raghavan Vs Jayalakshmi alias Jayamani

Dr.Christiana Jaya Shobana Vs Babiola Marie Jayasree

Will (1) of S.Visalakshi Vs

Shanti Devi Galada Vs G.Sheila Raju