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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Chockalingam, J.
Dr.S.K.Doraisamy
Versus
N.Elangovan and others
C.S.No.3 of 1997
Decided On : 30 July 2001

Advocates:
Manickka K.Ramalingam, for Plaintiff.
P.B.Balaji, for Defendants.

Admissions made by either party in Court should be clear, unambiguous and unconditional.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 12, Rule 6-Admissions made must be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal-Suit filed for payment of amount together with interest @ 24% from the date of plaint-Defendant admitting liability of Rs.6 Lakhs only-Suit decreed for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs only-Suit decreed for a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs with interest @ 12% per annum.

ORDER: This suit has been filed for direction, directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally the sum of Rs.18,92,000 together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs.

2. The plaint averments are as follows: The defendants approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.11,00,000 on 22.11.1993 in order to expand their Garment Factory and garment sales and also to buy certain machinery for their factory at No.16, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Teynamet, Chennai-600 018. The defendants in evidence of the loan received from the plaintiff jointly and severally executed a demand promissory note for Rs.11,00,000 on 22.1.1993 in favour of the plaintiff promising to pay the said sum on demand to the plaintiff or their order with interest at 24% per annum. They also executed a loan agreement dated 22.11.1993 promising to pay the said sum within a period of six months from the said date, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to collect penal interest at the rate of 36% per annum. But the plaintiff at present restricts his claim to collect 24% per annum on the principal amount. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the principal amount and also the interest to the plaintiff within the time. After several oral demands by the plaintiff, the defendant (3rd defendant) accepting the joint liability issued a cheque dated 10.2.1995 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards interest and part payment of the debt. But the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds in the Defendant’s Bank Account. Therefore, the plaintiff filed C.C. No.6239 of 1995 in the IX Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate Court to prosecute the defendants (3rd defendant) under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same is pending. The plaintiff has also filed C.C.No. of 1995 (No. not known to the plaintiff) in the Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate Court seeking direction to direct the Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, Egmore to take steps for recovery of the said amount due to the plaintiff. The Crime Branch has registered the Crime No.45 of 1995 in the first week of January, 1995 and the same is pending. Despite the demands, the defendants did not repay the amount with interest. Now a sum of Rs.11,00,000 towards principal as on 21.11.1996 and a sum of Rs.7,92,000 towards interest at 24% per annum from 22.11.1993 to the date of plaint, totalling Rs.18,92,000 is due and payable jointly and severally by the defendants. Hence the suit.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is alleged that the plaintiff being an N.R.I. and a Doctor by profession had transactions only in cash, and actually on the date of pro-note the plaintiff had no sufficient money in cash in hand. The plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on 22.11.1993 and promised to pay the balance in a fortnight. The plaintiff took signatures in blank pronote and as well as in stamp papers. The defendants acknowledging the timely help, believing the words of the plaintiff, signed in blank papers. The plaintiff has not paid the full amount as mentioned in the pro-note and the stamp papers. As stated above only part payment has been made. The plaintiff was busy in export activities at the time of borrowing and therefore, could not spend much in collecting the balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs. Whenever the defendants contacted the plaintiff to ask for the balance amount, there were no proper response. The remaining amount has not been paid by the plaintiff. The loan agreement alleged in paragraph 3 of the plaintiff is not known to the defendants except through the plaint allegations and the plaintiff is not entitled to interest at 36% p.a. The plaintiff accepts only cash payments and major portion of the principal and interest have been paid towards the suit claim. The plaintiff taking advantage of the nature of payment, viz., cash payments, suppressing various payments has come with false claim. The plaint



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top