The court established that the plaintiff provided loans to the defendants, despite their claims of receiving them as gifts, and determined an interest rate of 6% per annum due to lack of proof for a higher rate.

JUDGMENT

1. The two suits are being decided together since they involved common issues and common transactions and were consolidated by Order dated 1st May, 2019.

2. The plaintiff has sought recovery of sum of Rs.3,15,57,680/- against the defendant, his brother Daya Krishan Goel in Suit bearing No. 1240/2008 and Recovery of sum of Rs. 1,54,43,120/- from the defendant, his nephew Chirag Goel through his father Daya Krishan Goel in Suit bearing No. 1239/2008. Pendente lite and future Award interest @ 18% per annum has also been claimed from the date of filing of the Suit till its realization.

3. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff and the defendant Daya Krishan Goel are the real brothers while Chirag is the nephew. They had been doing business together and eventually the plaintiff shifted his business to Sri Lanka. The family business continued. According to the plaintiff on the request of defendant Daya Krishan Goel, he gave him (in CS(OS) 1240/2008) and his minor son defendant Chirag Goel (in CS(OS) 1239/2008) a personal loan in the sum of US $ 4,70,000/-, equivalent to INR Rs. 2,04,92,000/- and of US $ 2,30,000/-equivalent to INR Rs. 1,00,28,000/- calculated @ 43.60 paise per US$ as prevalent on 01st July, 2005 respectively. The sum is calculated @ 43.60 paise per US $ as prevalent on 01st July, 2005. The money was transmitted by the plaintiff from his personal bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Colombo, Sri Lanka by using SWIFT Banking Channel to the two accounts of the defendant Daya Krishan Goel and Chirag Goel, minor (maintained by his father Daya Krishan Goel) in ABN Amro Bank, NV, New Delhi on 01stJuly, 2005.

4. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant had promised to return the loan amount within six months and had also agreed to pay interest @18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till its repayment. However, despite expiry of the period of six months followed by repeated requests, the defendant has failed to pay the amount.

5. Left with no option, the plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 27th March, 2008 calling upon the defendant Daya Kishan Goel to refund/pay the amount along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f.01st July, 2005 till the date of payment. The defendant avoided to receive the Notice sent through registered post but was duly served through UPC despite which the defendant has failed to pay/refund the loan amount. Hence, the present Suit has been filed for Recovery of the loan amounts along with the pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till its realization.

6. The defendant in the respective Written Statement in the two Suits has taken the preliminary objection that the Suit of the plaintiff is based on absolute falsehood. It is admitted that the amount of USD 469,980.00 was remitted to the account of the defendant Daya Kishan Goel and USD 229,980.00 was remitted to the account of the Chirag Goel which is maintained by his father-Daya Kishan Goel, but it is claimed that it was not by way of personal loan, but on account of gift. The plaintiff in a planned manner used the defendant's account for his illegal gains. The modus operandi of the plaintiff was that the money would first be remitted to the account of the defendant which in turn on the instructions of the plaintiff, would be remitted to Dinesh International Ltd. and Vipin Enterprises a Partnership concern, both owned by the family members of the plaintiff and the defendant. Thereafter, the m