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

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Soumen Sen, J.
Indian Chain Private Limited. —Plaintiff
versus
Ajit Nain & Anr. —Respondents
C.S. 158 of 2008
Decided on 28.7.2014

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Pradip Kumar Jewrajka, Advocate.
For the Defendants :Mr. Jaydeb Ghorai, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Once defendant admits taking of loan he is bound to prove that it has been repaid.

Headnote:Financial and Debt Laws—Recovery of debt—Suit for recovery of money lent and advanced and for enforcement of mortgage—Essence of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds handing over by a borrower to creditor, title deeds of immovable property with intention that those documents shall constitute a security, enabling creditor to recover money lent—Deposit of title deeds have preceded grant of loan and it was on delivery of such title deeds creating security that plaintiff lent and advanced a sum of Rs.20 Lacs to defendant—Plaintiffs have been able to prove creation of valid mortgage—It may be that plaintiff has arranged his affairs in relation to loan transaction in a manner to get Income Tax Act benefit or may be on a deeper it could be found that provisions of Income Tax Act may not have been strictly allowed and not in conformity with provisions of the I.T. Act but, that by itself would not be a ground for denying plaintiff its right to claim balance amount of loan if the plaintiff could prove and establish its claim in this proceeding—It is for income tax authority to find out if there is any violation but failure to disclose receipt of such amount before authority does not absolve primary responsibility of defendant to pay balance amount unless it is shown to have been fully repaid or waived—Non-fulfillment of any condition as may be required under Income Tax Act, would not be much consequence and that could not give justification to defendant not to discharge its onus of proving and establishing that loan has been repaid in cash—Suit decreed. (Paras 59, 60, 64, 67, 72 to 76)

JUDGMENT

Soumen Sen, J.—The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of money lent and advanced and for enforcement of mortgage. The case made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is summarized below.

2. On or about 26th September, 1994, the plaintiff had lent and advanced a sum of Rs.20 lacs to Ajit Nain, defendant no.1, on terms of an agreement that the said sum would be repaid by him in five monthly installments of Rs.4 lacs each commencing from January 1995 to May 1995. The agreement provided that the said loan would carry an interest at the rate of 18% per annum to be paid on monthly basis by the defendant commencing from 25th October, 1994 on reducing balance. In the event of default of payment or either the principal or the interest, the defendant no.1 would pay penal interest of 1% per month. In consideration of the plaintiff agreeing to grant such accommodation loan to the defendant No.1 and as security thereof, the defendant No.2 would mortgage a flat owned by Ashok Nain at “Monalisa Co-operative Housing Society”, being Flat No.6D, 17, Camac Street, Kolkata, in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is the brother of the defendant No.1. On the basis of such agreement the plaintiff by a cheque bearing No.47613 dated September 26, 1994 drawn on Indian Bank, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata, lent and advanced a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1, thereafter encashed the said cheque and appropriated the proceeds thereof for his own benefit. The terms and conditions of the said loan agreement were recorded in a letter written by the defendant no.1 dated 26th September, 1994.

3. The defendant No.1 in acknowledgement of such loan also executed a demand Promissory Note.

4. In consideration of the plaintiff granting such loan of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only to the defendant no.1 as aforesaid and as further security, therefor, the defendant no.2 deposited with the plaintiff at Calcutta the original Title Deed in respect of his said flat being Flat No.6-D on the 6th floor of Monalisa Building at Premises No.17, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court together with all furniture and fixtures, sanitary fittings, equipments and garage No.22 in the said Premises and thereafter recorded the same in a writing dated 27th September, 1994.

5. The original Title Deeds deposited by the defendant no.2 to the plaintiff are as follows:-

(i) Original share script bearing no.17 of Monalisa Co-operative Housing Society Limited.

(ii) Purchase Agreement dated 6th May, 1980 between Ms. Fatima Raza and the defendant no.2.

6. Out of the principal amount of Rs.20 lacs lent and advanced, only a sum of Rs.13 lacs have been repaid by the defendants till May, 1999, leaving a balance of Rs.7 lacs as outstanding on account of principal. Interest, however, was paid till 25th October, 1996.

7. The defendants thereafter in acknowledgement of their liability paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs by two several cheques bearing No.540739 dated 2nd November, 2006 for Rs.1 lac and Cheque No.540740 dated 7th November, 2006 for Rs.1 lac respectively. The defendants, thereafter, on repeated demands for payment of the balance amount, proposed to make partial payment of the amount due and, accordingly, had issued five post dated cheques of Rs.3 lacs each payable between 31st March, 2008 and 30 October, 2008. The defendants, however, wrongfully, illegally and mischievously with the intention of avoiding payment of the amounts covered by the said cheques by letter dated 11th March, 2008 demanded return of the said cheques on allegation that the said defendant No.1 did not receive the alleged value against the said cheques.

8. In the premises, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants claiming a money decree for a sum of Rs.1,53,34,792.09 on account of balance principal amount and interest as well as for foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged flat.

9. The defendants contested the suit and f







































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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