SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 191

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
Ganga Taro Vazirani – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Raheja – Respondents
Summons for Judgment No. 45 of 2019 in Comm. Summary Suit No. 972 of 2019
Decided On : 16-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Zal Andhyarujina Sr. counsel a/w Ishani Khanwilkar a/w Ativ Patel a/w Darshit Dave i/b AVP Partners, Advocates
For the Defendant:Arif Bookwala Sr. counsel a/w Jyoti B. Singh, Sakil Ansari i/b The Law Office of Jyoti B. Singh, Advocates

Headnote:

COMMERCIAL SUIT - DISHONOURED CHEQUES - SUMMARY SUIT - MONEY LENDING ACT - PRE-INSTITUTION MEDIATION - CPC - CC ACT - INTERPRETATION - WAIVER - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE - LEAVE TO DEFEND - CONDITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a commercial summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC seeking a decree for the amount of dishonoured cheques issued by the defendant. The defendant contended that the suit was barred by the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act). The defendant also argued that the suit was filed in contravention of the CPC.

Finding of the Court:

1. The suit was not barred by the Money Lenders Act as the advance made by the plaintiff was not a 'loan' under the Act. 2. The suit was not barred by the CC Act as the plaintiff had substantially complied with the requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Act. 3. The defendant had waived the requirement of pre-institution mediation by not raising the issue at the earliest opportunity. 4. The suit was not filed in contravention of the CPC.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014? 2. Whether the suit was barred by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? 3. Whether the suit was filed in contravention of the CPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Money Lenders Act does not apply to a transaction where the advance is not a 'loan' under the Act. 2. The requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the CC Act is a procedural provision and can be waived by the defendant. 3. Substantial compliance with the requirement of pre-institution mediation is sufficient. 4. The defendant had waived the requirement of pre-institution mediation by not raising the issue at the earliest opportunity.

Final Decision: The Summons for Judgment was allowed subject to the condition that the defendant deposit Rs.5.54 crores in Court within twelve weeks. If the condition was not complied with, the plaintiff was entitled to apply for an ex-parte decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Summons for Judgment seeks a decree against the defendant in the sum of Rs.5,54,00,000/- along with an amount of Rs.1,49,75,342.47 towards interest calculated on the amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- @ 12% per annum from 1st January, 2017 to 30th June, 2019 (aggregating to Rs.7,03,75,342.47) and further interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realization.

2. The above suit has been filed as a Commercial Summary Suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) seeking a decree of the amounts mentioned above. The suit is based on two dishonoured cheques, one for Rs.5,00,00,000/- and the other for Rs.54,00,000/-. These two cheques were given by the defendant to the plaintiff. Both the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured when presented for payment, hence the present suit.

3. To understand in what circumstances these two cheques were issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, it would be necessary to refer to the facts and which are undisputed. In 2011, pursuant to the defendant’s request for financial assistance, the plaintiff agreed to disburse a sum of Rs.5 Crores to the defendant as a loan for business purposes. The said loan was repayable along with interest @ 19 % p.a. According to the plaintiff, on the basis of the defendant’s assurance of repayment along with the agreed rate of interest, the plaintiff issued a cheque of Rs.5 Crores dated 1st January, 2011 in favour of the defendant. The said cheque was duly encashed by the defendant and honoured by the plaintiff. On 3rd January, 2011, the defendant also drew a Bill of Exchange in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.5 Crores as a security for the said loan.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant continued to pay interest on the loan to the plaintiff as per the agreed terms until 9th December, 2016. Thereafter, as the defendant wanted a reduction in the rate of interest, on 9th December, 2016, the defendant addressed a letter to the plaintiff inter alia acknowledging the plaintiff’s loan of Rs.5 Crores and requested the plaintiff to reduce the rate of interest to 12% p.a. By the said letter, the defendant requested confirmation of the revised terms, namely, that the interest amount of Rs.27,22,192/- at the rate of 12% p.a. till 31st December, 2016 would be paid through RTGS and thereafter the interest rate would be 12% p.a. payable at the end of the calendar year i.e. 31st December, 2017. Acceding to this request, the plaintiff obliged to reduce the rate of interest from 19% p.a. to 12% p.a. Accordingly, on 20th December, 2016, the defendant and four others gave an undertaking (Exhibit “D” to the plaint) to the plaintiff as well as two other persons, under which, inter alia, the defendant acknowledged the loan of Rs.5 Crores taken from the plaintiff and also agreed to issue the post-dated cheques for repayment. Accordingly, the defendant issued two post-dated cheques, one in the sum of Rs.5 Crores dated 1st January, 2018, and the other in the sum of Rs.54 Lacs dated 31st December, 2017 respectively. The cheque for Rs.5 Crores was towards the principal amount and the cheque for Rs.54 Lacs was towards interest.

5. On 26th March, 2018, the plaintiff deposited the aforesaid two post-dated cheques, which were dishonoured on 27th March, 2018. The cheques were returned with the remark “Funds Insufficient”. In these circumstances, on 17th April, 2018 the advocates for the plaintiff sent a notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the defendant inter alia stating that the defendant had acknowledged the debt due and payable to the plaintiff and in case of failure to pay, the plaintiff would be constrained to initiate criminal action under section 138 of the said Act. The defendant failed to respond to the said notice or make repayment. Hence, on 6th July, 2019, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top