Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Renu Mathur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Chander Gupta - Respondent
RFA 1003 of 2019, CM APPL. 50426 of 2019, CM APPL. 54558 of 2019 & CM APPL. 27979 of 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2026
Certainly! Here is a flowchart outline based on the provided legal document:
START | v [1] Filing of Appeal under Section 96 CPC & Order XLI Rule 1 | v [2] Impugned Judgment: Decree of Rs.50 Lakhs + Future Interest @12% | v [3] Cross Objections: Plaintiff seeks pendente lite interest & costs | v [4] Court Orders Deposits: - 2/3rd of the amount deposited in Court - Kept in interest-bearing FDR - 50% of deposit released to plaintiff upon undertaking | v [5] Parties' Positions: - Plaintiff: Claims loan of Rs.50 Lakhs, interest, costs - Defendants: Deny loan, claim forged documents, dispute signatures | v [6] Trial Court Proceedings: - Evidence led by both sides - Witnesses examined | v [7] Trial Court Findings: - Cheques: Signatures verified, signatures authentic - Promissory Notes: Valid, signatures not forged - Discrepancies: Not material - No evidence of forgery or theft provided by defendants | v [8] Legal Analysis: - Burden of proof on plaintiff to establish signatures/handwriting - Plaintiff fulfilled burden with bank record evidence - Defendants failed to disprove signatures | v [9] Court’s Conclusions: - Plaintiff entitled to Rs.50 Lakhs + interest - Pendente lite interest granted from filing date to judgment date - Costs awarded to plaintiff | v [10] Judgment: - Appeal dismissed - Cross objections allowed - Release of deposited amount to plaintiff - Adjustment of amount in favor of plaintiff | v END
This flowchart summarizes the procedural history, key findings, and final decision based on the document.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeal process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. plaintiff's claims and facts (Para 6) |
| 3. defendants' response and denial of allegations (Para 7) |
| 4. formation of issues and disputes (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. trial court's findings (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. arguments by counsel for both parties (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's analysis on promissory notes and cheques (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. legal principles regarding onus and evidence (Para 22) |
| 9. pendente lite interest and costs (Para 25 , 26) |
| 10. decisions on appeal and cross objections (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 11. conclusion and directive from the court (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Amit Bansal, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC impugning the judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 59187/2016 (‘impugned judgment’).
2. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has passed a decree of Rs. 50 lakhs in favour of the plaintiff along with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The plaintiff has also filed cross objections to the extent that the Trial Court has erred in not granting pendente lite interest as well as the costs of the suit.
4. This Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2019, directed the appellants/defendants to deposit the 2/3rd of the decretal amount in the Court which was to be kept in an interest-bearing FDR. Further, vide order dated 21st February, 2024, this Court directed release of 50% of the deposited amount in favour of the respondent/plaintiff subject to respondent/plaintiff furnishing a personal undertaking.
5. Parties in the present appeal shall be hereinafter referred to as per the nomenclature in the Trial Court. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘defendants’ and the respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘plaintiff’.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
6. The case set up by the plaintiff before the Trial Court was as under:
6.1 The defendants are the legal heirs of late Sh. Rakesh Bahadur Mathur (hereinafter referred as ‘Sh. Rakesh Mathur’).
6.2 The plaintiff and Sh. Rakesh Mathur were neighbours and later became friends. Sh. Rakesh Mathur had sold a portion of his property to the plaintiff’s wife in 2012.
6.3 Sh. Rakesh Mathur was into property dealings and sought financial help from the plaintiff.
6.4 The plaintiff extended an interest-free friendly loan of Rs.50 lakhs to Sh. Rakesh Mathur over a period from July, 2013 to August, 2014 by way of cheques as well as cash.
6.5 Sh. Rakesh Mathur executed two promissory notes totalling to Rs.50 lakh in favour of the plaintiff and also issued five undated cheques, totalling Rs.50 lakhs.
6.6 Sh. Rakesh Mathur passed away on 26th July, 2015 and defendants, who are the legal heirs of late Sh. Rakesh Mathur inherited movable and immovable properties belonging to him.
6.7 Since the aforesaid loan amount was not returned to the plaintiff by the defendants, a legal notice dated 11th September 2015 was served by the plaintiff on the defendants. However, the defendants failed to make the due payment. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs.50 lakhs.
7. The case set up by the defendants in the written statement is as under:
7.1 The defendants have admitted that Sh. Rakesh Mathur sold a portion of the property bearing no. A-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the wife of the plaintiff. It is also admitted that the plaintiff and Sh. Rakesh Mathur were neighbours.
7.2 The defendants have denied the fact that Sh. Rakesh Mathur had sought any financial help from the plaintiff or that the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.50 lakhs to him.
7.3 The defendants have denied issuance of promissory notes or undated cheques by Sh. Rakesh Mathur to the plaintiff. It is stated that the promissory notes and the cheques are forged and fabricated and have been manipulated to make
The court confirmed that validated promissory notes and cheques substantiate claims for recovery, emphasizing that the burden of disproving such documents lies with the defendants.
The court confirmed the validity of financial agreements and established a party's entitlement to pendente lite interest and costs in a civil claim.
Presumption of validity under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unrefuted by the defendant, affirming enforceability of promissory note despite claims of fabrication.
Where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
An admission of signature on a negotiable instrument creates a legal presumption of consideration, which must be rebutted effectively by the defendant.
A cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at maturity; part payments prior to presentation defeat claims under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when the execution of a promissory note is admitted, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove non-....
Part payments made before cheque presentation can invalidate the enforceability of the debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
