Back
Supreme Court: Suit For Recovery Of Money Paid For Illegal Loan Procurement Not Maintainable
The has firmly held that a suit for recovery of money paid for an illegal and fraudulent purpose must be rejected at the threshold under . Applying the doctrine of , the Court ruled that when both parties are equally at fault in an illegal transaction, the law will not assist either of them.
A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan allowed an appeal by Poosa Sri Krishna and nine others against a order that had upheld the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint. The underlying suit, filed by the original plaintiff (now deceased and represented by her father-in-law Gattu Kishan Rao ), sought to recover money allegedly paid to the appellants for procuring bank loans.
The Illegal Procurement Scheme
The original plaintiff's plaint in O.S. No.18 of 2018 before the disclosed that the money was meant for "overhead expenses" in connection with obtaining loans from various banks. Critically, the plaint itself revealed that part of the funds was to be paid to bank officials in their individual capacity as consideration for facilitating the loan sanctions. Additionally, after demonetization, the plaint specifically averred that demonetized notes were collected and given to the appellants for exchange—an act legally impermissible at the time.
The appellants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, arguing that the plaint's own disclosures showed the consideration for the Memorandum of Understanding was forbidden by law, immoral, opposed to public policy, and fraudulent. They contended that when the very foundation of a claim is patently illegal, no court should entertain it.
The Doctrine of
The respondents argued that the money was meant for legitimate loan-processing formalities and that the appellants had fraudulently induced the plaintiff to part with a huge sum. They relied on the exception carved out in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (1967), which permits recovery when an illegal transaction has not been carried into effect.
Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court found that the plaint unambiguously disclosed two specific illegal purposes: (i) satisfying the personal demands of bank officials, and (ii) exchanging demonetized currency notes for consideration. The Court held that the underlying agreement was void under , as its object was unlawful.
The bench invoked the maxim potior est conditio defendentis (when parties are equally at fault, the position of the defendant is stronger). Quoting Black's Law Dictionary , the Court explained: “the principle that a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing.” It further cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner (1985), which noted that denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer is an effective means of deterring illegality.
Why the Sita Ram Exception Didn't Apply
The respondents' reliance on Sita Ram was held to be misplaced. The Court distinguished the facts: in the present case, the original plaintiff had already parted with the money, and the illegal purpose had been substantially carried into effect—the demonetized notes had been procured and exchanged. As the bench observed, “the illegal purpose has been substantially carried into effect as there is specific averment in the plaint that demonetized notes had been procured as consideration for the agreement executed between the parties.”
The Court also cited its earlier decision in G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew (2004), where it was held that courts cannot come to the aid of a party in an illegal transaction, and “.”
Final Verdict
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the suit pending before the was rejected in its entirety.
The judgment sends a clear message: courts will not lend their assistance to parties who seek to recover money paid for an illegal or fraudulent purpose. The plaint's own disclosures can be fatal, and the doctrine of will bar such claims at the very outset.
