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

2019 Supreme(Del) 1736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Sumit Juneja & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ram Kanwar - Respondent
RFA No. 866 of 2018 & CMs. 44128-29 of 2018
Decided on : 07-02-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rohit Kumar Modi, Advocate

Joint and several liability of defendants in repayment of invested amount with interest.

Headnote:

CPC - Recovery of Moneys - Section 96 of CPC - [1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as alleged in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiff had invested or deposited the amount in FDR with the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentelite and future interest @ 12% per annum? 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and for misjoinder of cause of action? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of suit amount along with interest? 6. Relief.] - The court decreed the suit for recovery of moneys filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 7,11,187/- along with interest at 9% per annum on account of such moneys being invested by the respondent/plaintiff with the defendant no.1. The court found that the appellant no.1/defendant no.2 admitted receiving the amount and transferred it to his bank account from the account of the respondent/plaintiff. The court also held that all the defendants were jointly and severely liable as they had agreed to repay the invested amount with interest. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of moneys invested with the defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja, which the defendants failed to repay. The defendants denied the investment and claimed that the respondent/plaintiff owed them money due to losses in a business transaction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant no.1/defendant no.2 admitted receiving the amount and transferring it to his bank account from the account of the respondent/plaintiff. The court also held that all the defendants were jointly and severely liable as they had agreed to repay the invested amount with interest.

Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiff was entitled to the suit amount, whether the plaintiff had invested the amount with the defendant, and whether the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admission of the appellant no.1/defendant no.2 regarding the receipt and transfer of the invested amount, as well as the lack of evidence to support the defendants' claim of the plaintiff owing them money.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly! Please provide the legal document content or specify the key points you'd like me to analyze, and I will generate the response accordingly.


JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit, and who are the legal heirs of late defendant no. 1. Late defendant no. 1 was the husband of defendant no. 3 and the father of defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 2 is the appellant no.1 and defendant no. 3 is the appellant no. 2 in this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of moneys filed by the respondent/plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 7,11,187/- along with interest at 9% per annum on account of such moneys being invested by the respondent/plaintiff with the defendant no.1, and this amount was agreed to be repaid back by all the defendants, but was not repaid, and hence the suit.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that he had been regularly investing in various firms being run by defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts, mutual funds, bonds etc. With respect to such amounts invested in different firms of the defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja, the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he received the maturity amounts from time to time. It was then pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that thereafter defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja/father of the appellant no.1 and husband of the appellant no. 2, approached the respondent/plaintiff to invest moneys in M/s Jaico Securities of which defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja was the sole proprietor. It was pleaded that the payments which were received by defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja were received in the name of the appellant no. 1/defendant no. 2. In the plaint, it is further pleaded that all the defendants agreed to pay the amounts due as also the interest at 1% per month, and that the defendants paid Rs. 1,04,000/- as interest till 31.10.2008. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the three cheques for payment of part of the liability were issued by late defendant no.1 being Cheque No. 272876 dated 04.12.2008 for Rs. 44,054.15, Cheque No. 272877 dated 09.12.2008 for Rs. 50,175/- and Cheque No. 377555 dated 17.06.2009 for Rs. 41,958.84. These cheques which were presented to the bank were returned dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds” and “payment stopped by the drawer”. It was pleaded that the appellants/defendants visited the respondent/plaintiff on 31.05.2010, and assured to repay the entire amount very soon, but the appellants/defendants failed to pay anything, and on the contrary started extending threats to the respondent/plaintiff and his family members. Therefore, pleading that a total sum of Rs. 8,55,424/- was due to the respondent/plaintiff with Rs. 7,11,187/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,44,237/- towards interest till 30.06.2010 with interest at 1% per month, the subject suit was filed.

3. As already stated above, there were three defendants in the suit. Defendant no.1/Late Sh. S.C. Juneja was the father of the appellant no.1/defendant no. 2 and the husband of the appellant no. 2/defendant no. 3. All the defendants in the suit filed a joint written statement. In the written statement there was general and complete denial that there was ever any investment made by the respondent/plaintiff of Rs. 7,11,187/- in M/s Jaico Securities of defendant no. 1. It was also denied that the amounts totalling to Rs. 7,11,187/- were received in the personal name of the appellant no.1/defendant no.2/son/Sh. Sumit Juneja. It was pleaded that in fact the respondent/plaintiff was doing business in Forward Trades with the appellant no.1/defendant no.2, and since losses were caused in this business, the respondent/plaintiff issued two Cheques bearing no. 313371 and 313373 for the amounts of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, in favour of the appellant no. 1/defe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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