Dismissed

N.V. Chakrapani v. M/S Rapajawasa Finance Mart

Madras HC18 Dec 2020CRP/1560/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Civil Revision Petition against an order rejecting a leave to defend application. The court held that since the petitioners admitted the borrowal in a letter, they cannot now claim defense, and the lower court's rejection was correct.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

N.V. Chakrapani Vs M/S Rapajawasa Finance Mart — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP(NPD)No.1560 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 14.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

CRP(NPD)No.1560 of 2016
CMP.No.8428 of 22016
(Through Video Conferencing)
1. N.V.Chakrapani
2. C.Jothi Petitioners
Vs
M/s.Rapajawasa Finance Mart, represented by its
Proprietrix, A.Fathima, Chennai-2 Respondent
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the order dated, 10.02.2016, made in IA.No.3688
of 2015 in OS.No.6096 of 2014, by the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.Magesh Kumar ORDER

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the order dated, 10.02.2016, made in IA.No.3688 of 2015 in OS.No.6096 of 2014, by the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶9

The facts of the case are that the Defendants are the Petitioners. The Plaintiff is the Respondent. The suit was filed for recovery of money based on loan agreements and promissory notes. Since the said IA filed by the

¶10

1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

CRP(NPD)No.1560 of 2016

¶12

Defendants, seeking leave to defend the case was dismissed, by the impugned order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Defendants.

¶13

This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their submissions and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.

¶14

According to the Petitioners, the Plaintiff Company is a fictitious Company and the Plaintiff had never issued the cheques in question in favour of the Defendants, but by forgery, the amount was encashed and the contentions raised in the Leave Petition are triable issues in nature. Per contra, it is the stand of the Respondent that having executed the promissory notes for the amount advanced, the Petitioners are not entitled to defend the suit.

¶15

In this case, it is relevant to refer to Ex.R7, which is the letter dated, 23.08.2013, sent by the 1^st Petitioner to the Respondent, wherein he has stated as under:-

¶16

“As per the agreement signed by me I will start repaying principal and interest from Sep.2013 onwards towards my total due mentioned in the earlier agreement.”

¶17

Ex.R8 is the legal notice, dated 9.1.2014 sent by the Respondent to the

¶18

Petitioners, calling upon them to repay the loan amount. Ex.R10 is the another legal notice, dated 17.02.2014, calling upon them to repay the loan amount. Ex.R12 is the reply sent by the Petitioners, dated 5.3.2014, acknowledging the receipt of Ex.R8 and Ex.R10 and stating that the matter will be settled shortly.

¶19

Having admitted in Ex.R7 the borrowal of the amount, at this stage, the

¶20

2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

CRP(NPD)No.1560 of 2016

¶22

Petitioners cannot file a petition, seeking to defend the case. Considering the same, the court below has rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioners, by the impugned order, which warrants no interference by this Court. Further, this Court finds no valid reason to allow this Civil Revision Petition and

¶23

hence, it is to be dismissed.

¶24

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected MP is closed.
18.12.2020
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Srcm
To
1. The XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

¶25

3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

CRP(NPD)No.1560 of 2016

¶27

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶28

Srcm

¶29

Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(NPD)No.1560 of 2016
18.12.2020

¶30

4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

N.V. Chakrapani v. M/S Rapajawasa Finance Mart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.V. Chakrapani v. M/S Rapajawasa Finance Mart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Murugesan Vs Ramasamy @ M. Annamalai

Rajeswari Vs Gunasekaran

Meganathan Vs Madhayan

K. Kadhirvelu Vs K. Narasimhan

Mahavir Plantiation (P) Ltd. Vs S.Motilal Kataria

Kannaya Naidu Vs Anandan