1. Applications for leave to defend the two suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Rs.5,75,17,240/- and Rs.9,94,14,041/- with interest and costs are for adjudication. The two suits, though by different plaintiffs, are against the same defendants No.1 to 3 save that there is an additional defendant No.4 in CS(OS) No.48/2011. The suits are being listed together and the same set of counsels have made the same arguments in both the suits.

2. The suits were filed pleading:

(i) That the defendant No.2 in both the suits viz. Mr. Janak Goyal, being the Director of the defendant No.1 Company, had approached the plaintiff in each of the suits in January, 2010 for business loan of Rs.4,35,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,00,000/- respectively for the purpose of promoting and developing the business of the defendant No.1 Company.

(ii) That the defendant No.3 Smt. Neelam Goyal is also a Director of the defendant No.1 Company.

(iii) That the defendants required the subject loan for the period with effect from 20.01.2010 to 31.05.2010 extendable upto 30.09.2010 with interest thereon at 36% per annum.

(iv) That the plaintiff in CS(OS) No.47/2011 agreed to lend the said loan to the defendant No.1 Company on the guarantee of the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff in CS (OS) No.48/2011 agreed to lend the said loan to the defendant No.1 Company on the guarantee of the defendants No.2 and 4.

(v) That the defendant No.1 executed the Loan Agreements dated 20.01.2010 with each of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor with respect to the loan subject matter of CS(OS) No.47/2011 and the defendants No.2 and 4 stood as guarantors with respect to the loan subject matter of CS(OS) No.48/2011 and in pursuance to the said Agreements, loan was advanced by each of the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum on the said loan.

(vi) That the loan amount was disbursed vide cheques, particulars whereof are given in the plaint in each of the two suits and which were duly encashed by the defendant No.1 Company.

(vii) That the loan was secured by, mortgage by delivery of title deeds of the properties described in the plaint in each suit, post dated cheques and guarantee of defendant No.2 in CS(OS) No.47/2011 and guarantee of defendants No.2 and 4 in CS(OS) No.48/2011.

(viii) That a Memorandum of Mortgage by deposit of title deeds was also executed.

(ix) That the defendants defaulted in repayment of the loan even within the extended period of 30.09.2010.

(x) That the post dated cheques issued in favour of the plaintiffs in each of the suits in repayment of the loan amount were also returned dishonoured with the endorsement of the bank of the defendant No.1 Company of “owing to insufficiency of funds” in the account of the defendant No.1 Company.

(xi) That notices demanding the amount were got issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants and subsequently complaints of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 also instituted.

These suits for recovery of the principal amount of the loan together with interest thereon at 36% per annum till the institution of the suits and the amount already deducted by the defendant No.1 Company towards tax at source from the interest amount, were filed under Order 37 of the CPC.

3. In response to the summons for appearance, appearance was filed on behalf of the defendants, summons for judgment issued and the defendant No.1 Company has filed IA No.17660/2011 and the defendants No.2 and 3 have filed IA No.17659/2011 in CS (OS) No.47/2011 for leave to defend and defendant No.1 Company has filed IA No.17661/2011 and the defendants No.2 & 3 have filed IA No.17662/2011 and the defendant No.4 has filed IA No.17763/2011 in CS(OS) No.48/2011 for leave to defend. However, as aforesaid, the same senior counsel on behalf of both the plaintiffs and the senior counsel on behalf of the defendants in both the suits have raised common ar