Madras High Court
T. Raghunathan vs V. Gopalakrishnan on 28 April, 2022
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
T. Raghunathan ..Plaintiff
Versus
V. Gopalakrishnan
Proprietor Sri Venkateswara Poly Pack,
Having Office at No.48, VI Main Road,
Nanganallur,
Chennai - 600 061. ..Defendant
Prayer:
Plaint under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules Read With Order VII, Rule
1 of CPC., prays for judgment and decree, directing the defendant herein to
pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.11,50,000/- together with interest at the rate
of 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of
plaint till the date of realization and for costs.
For Plaintiff : Mr.A. Chidambaram
For Defendant : Mr.M.Ganesan
----
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
JUDGEMENT
Suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- together with
interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for
costs.
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the plaintiff and the
defendant have entered into a Joint Compromise Memo dated 28.04.2022,
signed by them as well as their respective counsels. The said Joint
Compromise Memo reads as follows:-
(a) The plaintiff had agreed to receive a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only)
towards full and final settlement of the suit claim
from the defendant.
(b) In view of such full and final settlement,
the plaintiff agrees for raising the Attachment
Before Judgment order made in A.No.464 of 2006
to make necessary initiation before the concerned
Sub Registration Office for removal of the
attachment entry from the records in respect of the
above said property and clear the said entry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
(c) In view of the above settlement, the above
suit may be dismissed as settled out of Court.
(d) In view of the above settlement, the
plaintiff is entitled for refund of the Court fees paid
on the plaint and refund may be ordered in the
name of the counsel for the plaintiff.
(e) The parties to the compromise had
entered this compromise on their own accord and
free will.
3. Recording the Joint Compromise Memo dated 28.04.2022 filed by
the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff as well as the defendant, this
Civil Suit is dismissed as "Settled out of Court". The above Joint
Compromise Memo dated 28.04.2022 shall form part of the decree. The Sub
Registrar to act in pursuance to this order and clear the encumbrance. No
costs.
4. Registry is directed to refund the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff in
the Civil Suit in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court
Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.
28.04.2022
Speaking order : Yes/No
msm
Note: Issue order copy on 29.04.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
msm
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
2. As per the case of the plaintiff, on 22.04.2005, the defendant borrowed a
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing the suit promissory
note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. According to the
plaintiff, the defendant had also issued confirmation receipt for the loan
obtained by him on 22.04.2005 from the plaintiff. Subsequently, on demand,
the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.806797 drawn on Catholic Syrian
Bank, Purasaiwakkam Branch, Chennai, for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- towards
principal and interest due and payable to the plaintiff, however, the said
cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds in the bank
account. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 26.11.2005 and
the same was received by the defendant on 28.11.2005, however, the
defendant failed to settle the dues. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff
claiming a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- to be paid by the defendant with 24%
interest p.a.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed an
application Pursuant to the same, Ex.P1 is the promissory note dated
22.04.2005 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
Rs.10,00,000/- and as per the document, the defendant has agreed to repay
the said amount with 24% interest. Ex.P2 is the dishonoured cheque, dated
22.09.2005 issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of
Rs.11,00,000/- drawn on the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Chennai - 7. For the
cheque bounced, IOB, through which the cheque was presented for payment,
has issued supporting document. The reason assigned for the return is "funds
insufficient". The aforesaid document clearly shows that the defendant had
issued the cheque, dated 22.09.2005 for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- payable by
the defendant with interest and that was dishonoured due to insufficient
funds in the defendant's bank account. Subsequently, as per Ex.P3 the
plaintiff caused legal notice to the defendant and that was duly served on the
defendant and as per Ex.P4 postal acknowledgment.
5. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the
oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff, in this
suit clearly establish that the defendant had borrowed a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note,
Ex.P1 on 22.04.2005 and he has agreed to repay the same with 24% p.a.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No. 65 of 2006
interest and the cheque issued by the defendant for Rs.11,00,000/- on
22.09.2005 to discharge the loan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
