JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---These two appeals which arise from the same summary suit i.e. Summary Suit No. 702/92 can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment and order.

2. The brief and relevant facts which give arise to the filing of the aforesaid appeals can be summarised as under :-

a) In February 1996, Modiluft Limited (hereinafter referred as the "original defendant") approached Leela Capital Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Plaintiff") for grant of an Inter Corporate Deposit in the sum of Rs. 5 crores for a period of 90 days with interest at the rate of 27% per annum.

b) The said loan was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant on 20-2-96 on terms which were recorded in writing in a letter dated 20-2-96 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant. The acceptance of the terms by the defendant was given at the foot of this letter itself. In order to secure the deposit, it was contemplated that the defendant would issue postdated cheques for the interest and principal amount. Further, security by way of equity shares of listed companies with 50% margin was provided for in the said terms. The amount of Rs. 5 crores was given by the plaintiff to the defendant by a cheque dated 19-2-96 drawn on State Bank of India and its receipt was further evidenced by a receipt executed by the defendant. The defendant also executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 19-2-96 promising to pay to the plaintiff the principal sum of Rs. 5 cores alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 27% per annum after 90 days i.e. on 19-5-96.

(c) On 21-2-96, the defendant replaced the two original cheques for the amount of Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 25,63,151/- with substitute cheques. This was done as the original cheques which represented the principal and interest amount had been drawn on a Delhi Bank. The replacement cheques were drawn on a bank in Mumbai.

(d) On 10-5-96 in spite there being an express provision against a roll-over of the deposit, the defendant sought extension of the deposit for a period of three months and enclosed a cheque for an amount of Rs. 25,63,151/- towards interest for the period 19-5-96 to 19-8-96. The defendant also enclosed another cheque for an amount of Rs. 5 crores and requested the plaintiff not to deposit the earlier cheque for Rs. 5 crores while stating that the earlier cheque towards interest could be deposited.

(e) On 15-5-96, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant stating that the payment should be without any roll-over and that it would be depositing the earlier cheques and returning the new cheques.

(f) On 18-5-96, the defendant requested the plaintiff to give it one months time to pay the amount of Rs. 5 crores and not to deposit the cheque on 19-5-96. The plaintiff rejected this request made by the defendant on the very same date i.e. 18-5-96.

(g) On 19-5-96, the plaintiff presented the aforesaid cheques which were returned with the remarks "Funds expected".

(h) On 30-5-96, the plaintiff again presented the aforesaid two cheques for payment. The cheque for the interest amount was honoured. However, the cheque for the amount of Rs. 5 crores was dishonoured with remarks "insufficient fund".

(i) On 7-6-96, the plaintiff issued an Advocates notice to the defendant to pay amount of the dishonoured cheque together with interest.

(j) On 4-12-96, the plaintiff lodged the aforesaid Summary Suit No. 702/97 in this Court for recovery of sum of Rs. 5,67,68,493.23 alongwith interest at the rate of 27% per annum.

(k) On 5-2-97, in an unconnected happening, Indian Oil Corporation filed a winding up petition against the defendant in the Delhi High Court bearing Company Petition No. 68/97.

(l) On 23-4-97, the plaintiff requested the defendant to sign fresh transfer deeds in respect of the shares lodged by way of security with the plaintiff.

(m) On 30-6-97, the plaintiff took out a Summons for judgement and the affidavit of their officer one Mr. Jayant Athawale was filed in support thereof.

(n) On 6-7-9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document