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) 779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Gnanaprakasam, J.
K.T.S.Sarma, M/s.Seshasayee Brothers (P) Limited, Madras
Versus
Subramanian, Proprietor, M/s.Kumar Videos, Trichy
A.S.No.1375 of 1988
Decided On : 20 July 2001

Advocates:
S.Sampath Kumar, for Appellant.
C.P.Sivamohan, for Respondent.

Maxim-in pari delicto not applicable.

Headnote:Income tax Act, 1961-Section 269-Contract Act, 1872-Sections 23 and 70-Maxim-In pari delicto-Defendant borrowing amount evidenced by a letter-paid amount in cash ignoring provision of Section 269-Ss of 1961 Act-No illegality or impropriety in the contract-Maxim not applicable-D Direction given to defendant to pay the amounts.

JUDGMENT: The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,599.89 with subsequent interest and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that on 23.2.1985, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000, promising to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the same is evidenced by the letter dated 23.2.1985, written by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein the defendant further requested the plaintiff to make arrangements for a loan accommodation of Rs.25,000 repayable together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for a period of three months. The defendant further requested the plaintiff to send the amount by way of a Demand Draft drawn in favour of M/s.Seshayee Brothers Private Limited. As per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff sent further sum of Rs.20,000 to the defendant by way of demand draft in favour of M/s.Seshasayee Brothers (Private) Limited, in the first week of March, 1985. The defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest in respect of the amount borrowed on 23.2.1985. The plaintiff was having some dealings with M/s.Seshayee Brothers Private Limited from the year 1984 and the defendant is one of the Executive of the said company. In respect of the amount payable to the company, on account of the dealings had by the plaintiff, he sent a cheque dated 15.7.1985 for Rs.14,845.70 in favour of the defendant drawn on Bank of Baroda, Tiruchirapalli. The sum of Rs.20,000 sent to the defendant in the first week of March, 1985 by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of M/s.Seshayee Brothers (Private) Limited has been credited to the liability of the plaintiff in respect of the dealings which he had with the said company. As per the letter of the defendant dated 7.11.1985, written on behalf of the said company, he has specifically stated that as per the statement of accounts sent along with the same, the claim of the company has been completely settled. But, however, the defendant encashed the cheque amount of Rs.14,845.70, appropriated for himself, instead of returning the same to the plaintiff as the liability of the plaintiff to the company had already been completely settled. The defendant

had withheld the said amount without any justification and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The demand made by the plaintiff, in his notice dated 18.1.1986 for the payment of the amount was denied by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff had instituted the suit for a sum of Rs.82,599.80.

3. The defendant, in his written statement had denied the receipt of a sum of Rs.50,000 from the plaintiff on 23.2.1985. It is stated that the plaintiff was having business transaction with M/s.Seshasayee Brothers Private Ltd., Madras and in respect of the said dealings, amounts were given credit to the said company account and the defendant had not borrowed any amount in his individual capacity. The defendant is one of the Principal Executive of the company and he did not have any private dealings with the plaintiff. With regard to the cheque dated 15.7.1985, it is stated that it was brought by the plaintiff’s agent Senthil Arumugam and he represented that the plaintiff, due to certain reasons was unable to draw the cheque for himself out of his own accounts and requested him to make an endorsement and the defendant put his signature and delivered back to Senthil Arumugam. The defendant was not liable to pay any amount and denied the entire claim of the plaintiff.

4. Based upon the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues among other issues:

“(1) Whether the transaction in respect of Rs.50,000 was entered into by the defendant on behalf of M/s.Seshasayee Brothers Private Limited?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the amount of Rs.14,845.70 paid by way of a cheque?”

5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 besides two m


























































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