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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Amanpreet Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Dayal – Respondent
CS(COMM) 175 of 2020
Decided On : 27-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Arjun Singh Bawa and Ms.Sambhavi M., Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Amit Khanna, Mr.Aman Dhyani, Mr.Raj Vardhan, Ms.Kanchan Samwal and Mr.Kunal Arora, Advocates, for the Defendant.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XIIIA of the CPC to determine the probability of the defendant's defense in a commercial dispute and issue a conditional order for the defendant to deposit the loan amount.

Headnote:

Summary Judgment - Loan Transaction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Commercial Dispute - [LOAN TRANSACTION] - [REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION] - [CPC, 1908, NI Act, 1881] - The court discussed the nature of the loan transaction, the authenticity of the documents, and the commercial nature of the dispute. It found that the loan transaction, supported by proper documentation and involving two parties engaged in real estate business, constituted a commercial dispute. The court also analyzed the provisions of Order XIIIA of the CPC and determined that the defendant's defense was improbable, leading to a conditional order for the defendant to deposit the loan amount in court.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, engaged in real estate development and construction, extended a loan of Rs.4,30,00,000 to the defendant, who failed to repay. The defendant denied taking the loan and alleged forgery of loan documents. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming recovery of the loan amount and interest. The defendant raised objections to the maintainability of the suit and the authenticity of the loan documents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the loan transaction constituted a commercial dispute and analyzed the provisions of Order XIIIA of the CPC. It determined that the defendant's defense was improbable and issued a conditional order for the defendant to deposit the loan amount in court. The court also directed an inquiry into the unaccounted cash transactions and potential tax evasion by the parties.

Issues: The issues involved the nature of the loan transaction, authenticity of loan documents, maintainability of the suit as a commercial dispute, and the defendant's defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Order XIIIA of the CPC to determine the probability of the defendant's defense and issued a conditional order for the defendant to deposit the loan amount. It also highlighted the potential tax evasion and unaccounted cash transactions by the parties.

Final Decision: The court directed the defendant to deposit the loan amount in court within a specified period and ordered an inquiry into potential tax evasion by the parties. The suit was scheduled for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).

JUDGMENT

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:

    "a) Pass a summary judgement in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby Directing the Defendant to pay-

  • A sum of INR 4,21,00,000/- [Indian Rupees Four Crores Twenty One Lakhs] as principal,
  • A sum of INR 1,10,13,360/- [Indian Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty] as interest@ 6.976% per annum, commencing from 1.09.2016 to 31.05.2020,
  • A further sum of pendente-lite and future interest @18% per annum on the outstanding sum of INR 5,31,13,360/- [Indian Rupees Five Crores Thirty One Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty]."

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 NOCHEQUE DATEAMOUNTDRAWN ON
1.03549801.03.2017INR 1,50,00,000Axis Bank Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
2.03549901.04.2017INR 1,50,00,000Axis Bank Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
3.03550001.05.2017INR 1,50,00,000Axis 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 fulfil his obligations as per the Loan Agreement.

5. The plaintiff claims that on 29.05.2017, following the instructions and assurances of the defendant, he presented the aforementioned three cheques, however, the same were returned dishonoured with the remark "Dr

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top