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

1975 Supreme(Cal) 199

High Court Of Calcutta
AJAY KUMAR BASU
SUMITRA DEBI GOUR - Appellant
Versus
CALCUTTA DYEING AND BLEACHING WORKS - Respondent
Suit 264  Of  1971
Decided On : 07/17/1975

Advocates Appeared:
A.N.BOSE

In a suit for recovery of money advanced as loan, the defendant has the onus of proving due payment of the loan.

Headnote:

MONEY LENDING - Suit for recovery of money advanced as loan - Defence of payment - Receipts produced by defendant - Genuineness of receipts challenged - Stamp Act - Cancellation of stamp - Physical features of receipts - Defence of alibi - Diary entries - Evidence of plaintiff and her husband - Conduct of parties - Court's findings - Suit dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, Sumitra Debi Gour, filed a suit against the defendant, Calcutta Dyeing and Bleaching Works, for the recovery of Rs. 1,13,965.56, which she claimed to have lent and advanced to the defendant company. The defendant admitted the loan but claimed to have fully repaid it, relying on two receipts signed by the plaintiff in full discharge of the loan.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the receipts produced by the defendant were genuine and that the defendant had discharged its onus of proving due payment of the loan advanced to the plaintiff. The court also rejected the plaintiff's defence of alibi and found that she was present in Calcutta on the dates when the receipts were signed.

Issues: 1. Has the defendant paid Rs, 1,58,406. 41 to the plaintiff as alleged in Annexure A to the written statement? 2. Is the suit barred by limitation? 3. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties as alleged in paragraph 14 of the written statement? 4. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the receipts produced by the defendant were genuine and that the defendant had discharged its onus of proving due payment of the loan advanced to the plaintiff. The court also rejected the plaintiff's defence of alibi and found that she was present in Calcutta on the dates when the receipts were signed.

Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs.

AJAY KUMAR BASU

( 1 ) THIS suit has taken quite a long time. The argument was concluded at 4 p. m. yesterday the 16th instant on the 20th day of its hearing.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by one Sumitra Debi GOUR against the defendant, Calcutta Dyeing and Bleaching Works, a firm belonging to, as has been stated several times, Agarwala group of business concerns carrying on its business at P. 38. India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1. The plaintiff Sumitra Debi GOUR is the wife of one Madan Mohan GOUR who until 12th November, 1970, was associated with this Agarwala group of business. In fact prior to his resignation or withdrawal from service from this Agarwala group of business Mr. Madan Mohan Gour, the husband of the plaintiff, was the Managing Director of Indo-Dan Milk Products Co. Ltd. belonging to the said Agarwala Group.

( 3 ) SHORTLY, the plaintiff's case is that she lent and advanced diverse sums of money to the defendant company a firm, and at the time of the filing of the suit or immediately prior thereto after adjustment of accounts, the defendant firm was owing to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,13,965. 56 which the defendant did not pay in spite of repeated demands. Hence this suit has been filed by the said Sumitra Debi Gour for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 1,13,965. 56 as mentioned in the plaint with interests and costs, etc.

( 4 ) THE suit was filed on 18th June, 1971. , On behalf of the firm in the written statement it was, inter alia, stated that the plaintiff was a partner of one Bharat Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. belonging to the said Agarwala group between 1962 and 1967. After the plaintiff retired from the said firm of Bharat Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. on or about 1967 after adjustment the moneys due to the plaintiff from the said firm of Bharat Dyeing and Manufacturing were paid and/or credited in her name as loan with the defendant firm, it is alleged there were common partners of Bharat Dyeing and Calcutta Dyeing at the relevant time and Amar Chand Agarwala was a common partner.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the defendant various sums of money were re-paid to the plaintiff from time to time in repayment of the said loan and/or advance and after 31st of March every year statements of account showing the correct position were duly sent to the plaintiff.

( 6 ) IT was the further case of the defendant that at the request of the plaintiff the defendant has also paid various Income-tax liabilities of the plaintiff as well as has made direct payments to the plaintiff and all such payments were adjusted in the loan account of the plaintiff.

( 7 ) THE defendant's further case is that except one bank draft of Rs. 50,000/-which was sent to the plaintiff in Muzaffarna-gar in or about 16th September, 1970, all payments were made to the plaintiff in cash in Calcutta. The defendant relies on a statement of account ending 3,1st March, 1971 which is Annexure A to the written statement and according to the defendant the said statement of account has been duly sent' to the plaintiff and from the said statement of account it will be found that nothing is due to the plaintiff from the defendant firm and Rs. 50,000/- was paid on account in cash to the plaintiff on 23rd May, 1970 and in full settlement Rs. 57,208 was paid in cash to the plaintiff on 16th October, 1970 and on repayment of the said sum of Rs. 57,208/- on 16-10-1970 the entire loan account of the plaintiff was squared up and the said sum of Rs. 57,208 was received by the plaintiff in full and final settlement of all her dues from the defendant and nothing is due to her from the defendant firm.

( 8 ) SHORTLY put, the plaintiff has sued for the recovery of the said sum as loan and advance to the defendant and the defence of the defendant was that the entire sum of money that was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant has been fully paid with interests as agreed in full settlement of the claims of the plaintiff by the defendant.

( 9 ) AS the loan was admitted and the def
























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