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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 22748

DELHI HIGH COURT
AMANPREET KOHLI – Appellant
Versus
PANKAJ DAYAL – Respondent
CS(COMM)-175/2020



CS(COMM) 175/2020

Page 1 of 21

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 28.02.2023

Date of decision: 27.03.2023

+

CS(COMM) 175/2020

AMANPREET KOHLI

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr.Arjun Singh Bawa,

Ms.Sambhavi M., Advs.

versus

PANKAJ DAYAL

..... Defendant

Through:

Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Amit

Khanna,

Mr.Aman

Dhyani,

Mr.Raj Vardhan, Ms.Kanchan

Samwal,

Mr.Kunal

Arora,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

IA 8177/2022

1.

This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order

XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to the

Commercial Disputes of a specified value, (hereinafter referred to as

„CPC‟), inter alia,praying for the following reliefs:

Three Hundred and Sixty].‖

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:28.03.2023

01:29:47

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 175/2020

Page 2 of 21

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

2.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is engaged in the

business of Real Estate Development and Construction. The plaintiff

has known the defendant for several years as the defendant is also

engaged in the business of Real Estate. The parties entered into a

congenial formal relationship. Sometime in the month of August

2016, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him for

financial assistance to tide over his financial distress. The defendant

promised the plaintiff to return the loan within a short period of time

along with interest, on the assurance that he has various prospective

business opportunities maturing soon which will enable him to repay

the entire loan amount with interest. Based on such assurances, the

plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.4,30,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty

Lakhs only) to the defendant in August, 2016. The defendant assured

and promised the plaintiff that he would repay the said loan amount

along with an interest of Rs.20 Lakhs within a period of eight months

from the disbursement of the said loan. The Loan Agreement dated

01.09.2016 recording the agreed rate of interest on the principal

amount of Rs.4,30,00,000/- as 6.976% p.a. was executed between the

parties. The plaintiff further asserts that apart from the Loan

Agreement, the defendant also executed a Promissory Note dated

01.09.2016 and issued the following three Post-Dated Cheques,

collectively for an amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/-, in favour of the

plaintiff:

S.No. CHEQUE

NO

CHEQUE

DATE

AMOUNT

DRAWN

ON

1. 035498

01.03.2017 INR

1,50,00,000

Axis Bank

Limited,

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL

Signing Date:28.03.2023

01:29:47

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 175/2020

Page 3 of 21

Lajpat

Nagar,

New Delhi

2. 035499

01.04.2017 INR

1,50,00,000

Axis Bank

Limited,

Lajpat

Nagar,

New Delhi

3. 035500

01.05.2017 INR

1,50,00,000

Axis Bank

Limited,

Lajpat

Nagar,

New Delhi

3.

The plaintiff asserts that after receiving the sum of

Rs.4,30,00,000/-, the defendant ceased all contact and the plaintiff was

unable to reach or communicate with him for many weeks altogether.

Sometime in January 2017, the plaintiff and his wife accidentally ran

into the defendant at the Defence Colony market. The plaintiff

confronted the defendant and inquired from him about the reason for

severing all contact with the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff would

be receiving a sum of Rs.4,30,00,000/- as the date of presentation of

the cheque was approaching. The defendant assured the plaintiff that

he had sufficient funds to fulfill his obligations under the Loan

Agreement and the cheques would be duly encashed on presentation.

4.

In March 2017, however, when the plaintiff again approached

the defendant to inquire whether the cheques would be honoured upon

presentation, the defendant showed his inability to honour the cheques

and sought some additional time to re-pay the loan amount. The

defendant assured that in the month of May 2017 he would have

sufficient funds in order to f

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