Delhi High Court
Mrs. Jasleen Chanana vs Mr. Kartar Singh Kumar on 3 November, 2009
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.11.2009
+ CS(OS) 489/2007
MRS. JASLEEN CHANANA ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Sudeep Kumar Shrotriya, Mr. Indrajit Das and Mr.
Gaurav Khanna, Advocates.
Versus
MR. KARTAR SINGH KUMAR ..... Defendant
Through : Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1.
Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes.
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes.
reported in the Digest?
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
CS (OS) 489/2007
1. This is a suit for recovery seeks a money decree for Rs. 21,56,000/- along with pendente
lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. The plaintiff claims that she became acquainted with the defendant, a property broker, as
they are members of the same sect, i.e. Radha Swami Satsang, Ferozepore (Punjab). The
defendant approached her, requesting a loan of Rs. 14,00,000 on the pretext of financial
difficulties and assured her that he would repay the entire loan amount at the earliest with interest
and in any case within one year. Relying upon the statements of the defendant, says the plaintiff,
she extended to him that amount way of cheques drawn on various dates (i.e. on 28.01.2004 for
CS(OS) 489/2007 Page 1
Rs. 4,00,000/-, on 29.01.2004 for Rs. 3,00,000/- and on 26.02.2004 for Rs. 7,00,000/-) from her
NRE SB A/c No. 213/289 maintained with the Bank of India, N.R.I. Branch, P.T.I. Building, 4
Sansad Marg, New Delhi. The plaintiff states that the amounts were duly withdrawn and
appropriated by the defendant.
3. The plaintiff contends that the defendant later defaulted repayment of the amounts and
sought some time, citing the pretext of heavy business losses. It is stated that even later the
defendant kept on delaying the matter citing some excuse or other, which led the plaintiff to
believe that he had no intention to honour the commitment, and repay the amounts due to her.
The plaintiff issued a legal notice, dated 22.06.2005 through her lawyers calling upon the
defendant to repay the loan amount alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The
defendant did not accede to the requests of the plaintiff, compelling her to initiate these legal
proceedings against him.
4. The plaintiff further points out to a later instance when she contacted the defendant to
facilitate purchase of a plot in Narela Residential Scheme. The plaintiff alleges that once she
purchased that plot the defendant in order to compel her to sell it at throw away prices, sent
goons (anti-social and undesirable elements) to her residence who extended threats to her,
against which she claims to have lodged appropriate complaints with the local police and later a
civil suit (CS (OS) No. 11/2006), which is pending adjudication before the Civil Judge, seeking
the relief of permanent injunction; and an interim injunction has been issued against the
defendants therein.
5. The defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 16.05.2008 and the plaintiff was directed to
lead her ex-parte evidence. The plaintiff filed her ex-parte affidavit in evidence (Ex. PW-1/A)
CS(OS) 489/2007 Page 2
reiterating the plaint averments and examined herself stating that reliance is placed on Ex. PW-
1/1 to Ex. PW-1/6.
6. The Court has considered the submissions and the evidence placed on record. Ex. PW-1/1
is the copy of statement of account of the Bank of India account of the plaintiff it shows that
cheques for the amounts were drawn by the plaintiff on the dates urged, in favour of the
defendant. Besides, it also shows cheques drawn by the plaintiff (Rs. 3,50,000/- on 24.01.2004
and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28.01.2004 in favour of Mala Kumar and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 04.03.2004 in
favour of Gurcharan Singh) in favour some persons who are allegedly the relatives of the
defendant. Ex. PW-1/3 is the legal notice dated, 22.06.2005 issued to the defendant.
7. The defendant has since been proceeded ex-parte as such the averments in the plaint
remain uncontroverted. The plaintiff has successfully established that she had indeed issued
cheques in favour of the defendant for the said total sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- and that the same
amount were appropriated by him (the defendant) and that a legal notice was issued in June,
2005 to the defendant demanding repayment of the said amounts. The facts mentioned by the
plaintiff about purchase of the Narela Residential Scheme plot and the surrounding
circumstances leading to her filing another suit against the defendant before the Civil Judge, do
not, however concern the present suit; they are irrelevant.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has established that she
advanced the sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs only) to the defendant. She has
established that the defendant did not repay the amounts, despite her request; the evidence also
shows that a legal notice was issued to the defendant, calling him to repay that amount, which
was not complied with. The plaintiff, however, has not shown her entitlement to interest, as
concededly the transaction was oral, and an informal arrangement. By all accounts, it was a
CS(OS) 489/2007 Page 3
"friendly" loan, and in the absence of any terms regarding interest, the claim for interest @ 18%
p.a. is not justified.
9. In view of the above discussion, the suit has to succeed to the extent of the principal
amount. The suit is therefore, decreed for the sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs
only) with future interest @ 8 % per annum, till realization. The plaintiff shall be entitled to
costs; the counsel's fee is quantified at Rs. 35,000/-.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 3, 2009
'ajk'
CS(OS) 489/2007 Page 4
