The liability to pay compensation cannot be construed disjointed from the stipulation as to lock-in period, and the defendants' defence was fair and reasonable.

ORDER

1. This commercial division summary suit is instituted for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,18,80,173/- along with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,79,65,000/- covered by the dishonoured cheques, which form the basis of the suit.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiffs case can be stated as under:

(a) Plaintiff no.1 is a private limited company. Plaintiff no.2 is its Chief Finance Officer. Plaintiff no.3 is one of the Directors of plaintiff no.1. Defendant no.1, who expired on 20th May, 2021, was the sole proprietor of JOY Builders, under the name and style of which, the deceased defendant no.1 carried on the business of construction and redevelopment of real estate. Defendant no.2 is the son of defendant no.1 and authorised representative of JOY Builders. Defendant no.1A is the wife of deceased defendant no.1 and defendant nos.1B and 1C are the daughters of deceased defendant no.1.

(b) The plaintiffs aver that pursuant to the request of the deceased defendant no.1, the plaintiff had provided a financial assistance of Rs.3 Crore to the defendants. It was agreed by and between the plaintiffs and defendants that the said amount would be repaid along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., payable on quarterly basis, and a one time compensation of Rs.1 Crore. The said amount of Rs.3 Crore was credited in the account of the defendants on 14th July, 2016. The defendants issued a reservation-cum-provisional allotment letter dated 14th July, 2016 in favour of plaintiff no.1 whereby Flat No.501 in Wing B, 5th Floor of JOY Legend, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (West), Mumbai, was provisionally allotted by the defendants to plaintiff no.1. It was inter alia recorded therein that the said amount of Rs.3 Crore was to be returned along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. plus one time compensation of Rs.1 Crore. The defendants had also issued four cheques drawn for Rs.1 Crore each towards repayment of the principal amount of Rs.3 Crore and the compensation of Rs.1 Crore.

(c) The plaintiffs further aver that on 1st October, 2016, the defendants paid a sum of Rs.10,66,500/- towards interest on the said amount of Rs.3 Crore. On 22nd November, 2016, the defendant repaid the entire principal amount of Rs.3 Crore. However, the compensation of Rs.1 Crore, as agreed, was not paid. Eventually, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- on 27th December, 2016 towards payment of interest for the balance period at the rate of 18% p.a. The amount so paid represented interest at the rate of 18% p.a. instead of 24% p.a., as agreed. Upon being confronted, the defendants undertook to pay the balance amount towards agreed interest as they were in financial constraints, at that point of time.

(d) The plaintiffs further aver that the defendants sought time to pay the said amount of Rs.1 Crore towards compensation on one or the other pretext. To compensate the loss to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to pay interest on the said amount of Rs.1 Crore at the rate of 25% for the delayed period. Thus, in the month of April a cheque was drawn for Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff no.2 towards the interest. On 1st February, 2020 another cheque for Rs.29,65,000/- was drawn in favour of plaintiff no.2. Believing the assurance of the defendants, the plaintiff presented the cheques drawn for Rs.1 Crore towards the compensation, and Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.29,65,000/- towards interest, on 3rd February, 2020. Upon presentment, the cheques were returned un-encashed. The plaintiffs were constrained to issue a demand notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. The defendants neither complied with the demand nor gave reply to the demand notice. Hence the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the suit for recovery of the said amount of Rs.2,18,18,173/- along with further interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,79,65,000/-, covered by the dishonoured cheques.

3. In response to the writ of summons, the defendants appear