Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4470
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
DHIRENDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SANJIV KUMAR - Respondent
RSA 174 of 2016
Decided On : 20-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Kedar Yadav & Mr. Hemant Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Kumar
The main legal point established is that the loan documents obtained from the appellant were misused, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote:
Money Lending - Illegal Business - RSA 174/2016 - [Order XXXVII CPC] - The court discussed the malpractices in the illegal business of money lending, where innocent individuals are lured to sign blank documents at the time of taking a loan at a higher rate of interest. The appellant, a postman, was alleged to have taken a loan and was sued for non-repayment. The court found that the loan documents were obtained from the appellant and misused to exploit him, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a postman, was sued for non-repayment of a loan taken from a finance company. The appellant claimed that the loan documents were obtained from him and misused to exploit him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loan documents were obtained from the appellant and misused to exploit him, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the loan documents obtained from the appellant were misused to exploit him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the loan documents were misused to exploit the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed with costs throughout.
RSA 174/2016
1. This Regular Second Appeal though preferred against the concurrent finding of the facts by the Courts below, highlights the malpractices prevalent in the illegal business of money lending where the innocent, poor and needy persons especially in Government services at lower level are lured to sign blank documents at the time of taking loan at higher rate of interest to meet their urgent needs. The modus operendi in this money lending business has been prevalent for a long time but the problem arises when despite repaying the loan with higher rate of interest to such money lenders, the borrower continues suffering just for the reason that the blank cheques and the stamp papers duly signed by him are not returned, rather misused by money lender. The instant case is a glaring example of unethical and illegal practices being followed by the respondent/plaintiff taking advantage of the fact that blank cheques, promissory note and stamp paper duly signed were taken from the appellant while giving loan which stands repaid by him.
2. The appellant before this Court is a postman who had taken a loan from M/s Jai Kishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd. on 26th May, 2004 which was credited to his saving account on 28th May, 2004. The real issue is whether there was only one loan taken by the appellant from M/s.Jai Kishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd. which he has repaid but the blank documents duly signed by him were not returned despite repayment or there were two loans on the same day; one from M/s.Jai Kishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and another of Rs. 80,000/- from Sh.Sanjeev Kumar who is running M/s.Jai Kishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd. which was allegedly given by him on interest @ 2% per month against execution of documents Ex.PW1/1 to PW1/3 i.e. promissory note, receipt and loan agreement.
3. A Civil Suit No.178/2012 under Order XXXVII CPC was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the strength of a loan agreement dated 26th April, 2004 and the cheque dated 26th November, 2006 in respect of a cash loan of Rs. 80,000/- given by the plaintiff to the appellant/defendant No.1 – Dhirender Kumar on interest @ 2% per month for a period of 30 months. Defendant No.2 Vijay Laxmi, colleague of defendant No.1 stood guarantor for the said loan. On failure of defendant No.1 to repay the said loan despite expiry of the agreed period, the plaintiff demanded the repayment with interest thereon. In order to discharge the said liability defendant No.1 issued cheque no.915370 dated 26th November, 2006 for Rs. 1,28,000 i.e. Rs. 80,000 towards principle amount and Rs. 40,000 towards interest. Since the cheque on presentation got dishonoured on 13th January, 2007 for the reason that funds were insufficient, a notice dated 31st January, 2007 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act was sent to the defendant No.1 which was returned with the remarks ‘no such person resides’. However, a reply dated 26th February, 2007 was received. The plaintiff pleaded that he has been cheated in a calculated manner by the defendant No.1 by withholding the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,28,000/-.
4. After considering the plea taken in the application seeking leave to defend, wherein it was specifically denied that any loan of Rs. 80,000 in cash was given by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 but admitted that a loan was taken from M/s.Jai Kishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd of which Sanjeev Kumar, plaintiff was the proprietor. Though the said loan has been repaid, the documents furnished at the time of taking that loan of Rs. 40,000 have been misused to file the suit under Order XXXVII CPC, learned Trial Court granted unconditional leave to defend.
5. Separate written statements were filed by both the defendants pleading that on seeing an advertisement in the newspaper about the loan, defendant No.1 approached one Smt.Seema at P-10, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110007 who took him to M/s.Jai Kishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd of which Sanjeev Kumar was the proprietor. At that time of granting the loan of Rs. 40,000, to co
