The court emphasized the validity of promissory notes, established jurisdiction based on the defendant's business location, and followed principles for granting leave to defend.

JUDGMENT :

Mukta Gupta, J.

IA 10824/2018 (u/O 37 Rule 3(5) CPC) in CS (COMM) 473/2017

IA 10826/2018 (u/O 37 Rule 3(5) CPC) in CS (COMM) 474/2017

1. Plaintiffs have filed the two suits under Order XXXVII CPC seeking money decrees.

2. Case of the plaintiff in CS(COMM) 473/2017 is that on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff Jaipal Chand Jain advanced a loan through RTGS for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs on 3rd February, 2016 for which he executed a promissory note dated 3rd February, 2016. Jaipal Chand Jain further advanced a loan of Rs.40 lakhs through RTGS on 20th December, 2014 out of which Rs.26 lakhs was paid by the defendant on 16th June, 2015. Jaipal Chand Jain also advanced a loan of Rs.10 lakhs through RTGS to the defendant on 7th April, 2016 when again a promissory note of the even date to that extent was executed.

3. The defendant failed to pay the sum, however handed-over a cheque for a sum of Rs.35 lakhs to the plaintiff with respect to partial payment of interest accrued which on presentation was returned unpaid with the remarks "funds insufficient". On 3rd January, 2016 Jaipal Chand Jain served the notice of demand, however the money was not received. Hence the suit for recovery for a total sum of Rs.1,01,44,600/- along with the interest that has accrued thereon.

4. As per the two promissory notes sum of Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs were to be returned with an interest of 4% per month.

5. Based on the sums advanced as noted above, through three RTGS from the plaintiff's bank account to the defendant's bank account, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,01,44,600/- along with future interest and cost.

6. In CS(COMM) 474/2017 the plaintiff Abhishek Jain seeks a money decree for a sum of Rs.2,57,92,700/-. Case of Abhishek Jain is that the defendant is carrying on business in the name of Mangalya Realtech Private Limited with its registered office at B-7, Ground Floor, Ashoka Niketan, Nanak Vihar, Delhi. At the request of the defendant Abhishek Jain loaned a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 8th December, 2014 to the defendant through RTGS from his bank. The said amount carried an interest @ 3% per month for which a promissory note of even date was executed and that at the time of filing of the suit along with the interest that has accrued the sum entitled to be recovered from the defendant pursuant to the loan dated 8th December, 2014 was Rs.93,10,000/-. Again on 10th December, 2014 Abhishek Jain advanced a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant @ interest of 3% per month for which promissory note was again executed on the same date. The interest stipulated in the promissory note was 3% per month and thus on the date of filing of the suit a total sum of Rs.46,50,000/- became payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on the said note. Abhishek Jain further paid a loan of Rs.35 lakhs on 11th March, 2016 at the interest of 4% per month for which a promissory note was executed on the same date and the amount that accrued towards Abhishek Jain till 30th April, 2017 was a sum of Rs.54,08,700/-.

7. Two further sums of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs were advanced as loan by Abhishek Jain to the defendant on 2nd June, 2016 and 24th June, 2016 respectively for which payments were made through RTGS. The said amount carried interest @ 4% per month and two promissory notes were executed in respect of sum of Rs.30 and Rs.15 lakhs on 2nd and 24th June respectively. Thus the total recovery as on 30th April, 2017 qua the two loans was Rs.43,12,000/- and Rs.21,12,000/- thereby amounting to a total sum of Rs.2,57,92,700/-. The assertion of the plaintiff is fortified by the fact that the defendant paid interest as mentioned in the notes to the plaintiff amounting to Rs.5,40,000/- on 27th February, 2015 on which he also deducted the TDS which was credited to the account of the plaintiff.

8. The amounts paid by the two plaintiffs to the defendant an