IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, J.
Sanjay Madhusudhan Mehra – Appellant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Sanjay Madhusudhan Mehra – Appellant
Versus .
M/s. Ahuja Properties and Associates – Respondent
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.60 OF 2021 IN COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO.68 OF 2021, INTERIM APPLICATION (L) 18447 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1656 OF 2021
Decided on : 01-09-2023.
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 2 (1)(c) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVII - Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 - Section 2(2) - Grant short term loan - Recovery of an amount - Suit has been filed by plaintiff for recovery of an amount – Defence of Plaintiff having lent a friendly loan is misconceived - Para 11.
Finding of the Cour t: Mere use of words “friendly loan” by Defendant does not change nature of commercial transaction which would fall within definition of ‘commercial dispute’- Defence of illegal money lending was taken up for first time in reply - Thus it deserves to be rejected - To substantiate a case of money lending, Defendant has to give details and particulars that Plaintiff was engaged in business of money lending by showing that activity of Plaintiff was systematic, regular, repetitive and continuous that generated appreciable revenue - Defendant has failed to give any such details - Thus, contention is liable to be rejected - Defendants have clearly failed to pay principal and interest amounts due to plaintiff and is therefore not entitled to unconditional leave - Defendants have failed to make out a plausible defence.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. This commercial summary suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,18,25,513/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.75,00,000/-.
2. Sometime in the year 2013, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 approached the plaintiff with a request to grant them short term loan for their business of construction and development activities. Pursuant to the request, plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- in two tranches Rs.25,00,000/- was advanced on 10 June 2013 and Rs.50,00,000/- was advanced on 22 December 2014 in favor of the defendant No.1. Against this loan, the defendants executed Bills of Exchange payable on demand in favor of the plaintiff signed by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Defendants agreed to pay interest @ 23.40% p.a. thereon and also agreed to repay the said loan within a period of one year from the date of the availment of the loan.
3. The defendants have paid interest at the rate of 23.40%, which is evinced by the deduction of TDS on the interest amount. At the request of the defendants, the period of loan was extended from time to time. Although the defendants issued cheques, they requested not to deposit the same and assured the repayments directly into the plaintiff’s account by RTGS or Pay Order. On 1st April 2019, an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for which the defendants issued a cheque bearing Cheque No.517896 dated 31 July 2019 and another cheque bearing Cheque No.517893 towards interest amounting to Rs.29,32,762/-. Both the cheques were drawn on Cosmos Bank, Vile Parle Branch. The plaintiff could not en-cash the cheques as the same were dishonoured on 1st August 2019 and returned with the remark “funds insufficient” by the plaintiff's bank.
4. The defendants thereafter issued cheques for the principal and the interest in the month of November 2019, December 2019 and lastly in or around 31 December 2020 for principal amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and for interest of Rs. 41,00,513/-. These cheques drawn on IDBI bank bearing Nos.751118 and 751119 when deposited were also returned with the remark “funds insufficient”. The plaintiff was therefore constrained to issue legal notice through his advocate on 29 January 2021 calling upon the defendant No. 1 and also defendant Nos.2 and 3 being its partners to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff’s the outstanding amounts which were then to the tune of Rs.1,16,00,513/-. On failure to comply with the notice, the plaintiff filed a suit on 3 April 2021, in which plaintiff has claimed rupees Rs.1,18,25,513/- as more particularly stated in the particulars of claim at exhibit H of the plaint.
5. Mr. Kedia the learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that by an order dated 24 June 2022 the partners of the defendant No.1, viz. namely 2 and 3 have been adjudicated as insolvents. Upon service of the Summons for Judgment No. 60 of 2021, the defendants have filed their affidavit in reply dated 25 November 2021 and the plaintiff has filed a rejoinder on 27 July 2022. The learned counsel submitted that there is no defence is made out in the affidavit in reply and thus the suit ought to be decreed.
6. Mr Mahajan the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiff has advanced money to the defendant No. 1 as a friendly loan which did not fall under the purview of section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He submitted that since there was suppression of this material fact, unconditional leave ought to be granted to the defendants. He submitted that this is not a commercial dispute as per section 2(1) (c) and as therefore being wrongly lodged as a commercial suit. According to him, there is no financial transaction nor any agreement between the parties where the defendants agreed to pay interest to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the suit is not based on a written contract or on a guarantee and therefore not covered under order XXXVII of the Code o
Cheques may constitute mode of payment by plaintiff and they may constitute evidence of transaction of loan, but they cannot said to be basis of money suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XIIIA of the CPC to determine the probability of the defendant's defense in a commercial dispute and issue a conditional o....
A defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend if they satisfy the court that they have a substantial defence likely to succeed, or if they raise triable issues indicating a fair or reasona....
The statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, places a higher burden on the defendant to elucidate the defense in cases of dishonored cheques. The court also emphasized the en....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Money-Lending Act, 2014, Section 13, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 12A, to determine the....
Certified copies are admissible in summary suits, and defenses that do not raise triable issues can be dismissed without leave to defend.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consequences of making false statements on oath and the distinct and new liability arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act when payment is....
A cause of action is established when the plaintiff proves necessary facts for relief, as demonstrated by the acknowledgment of a loan and dishonor of a cheque.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.