1. This is a summary suit for Rs. 12,80143.21 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 11,7,900/- @ 24% per annum pendente lite and future till realisation, has been instituted by the plaintiff company against the defendant who was employed with the plaintiff as the Director (Finance and Accounts) and who had availed a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from the plaintiff company, to be returned within six months time in terms of loan agreement dated 18th June, 1987.
2. The loan amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was disbursed to the defendant vide a cheque No. 591332 dated 18th June 1987, drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The agreed rate of interest was 14 per cent per annum.
3. Pursuant to and in terms of the said loan agreement, the defendant executed a demand promissory note date 18th June, 1997.
4. The defendant also issued two post-dated cheques, one bearing No. 732028 for Rs. 10 lakhs being principal amount and the other company cheque No. 732029 for Rs. 1,07,900/- being the interest amount in relation to the stipulated period. Both cheques were drawn on Central Bank of India, Noida Branch. The loan amount Along with above-said interest, was repayable by 23rd April, 1998.
5. The defendant had requested the plaintiff to present the cheques in June 1998. The amounts had earlier fallen due on 23rd April, 1998. Despite cheques being presented much later, and as per desired date of the defendant, still the same were dishonoured.
6. A legal notice was served both by registered post, as well as personally, on 3rd July, 1998. While receiving that notice, the defendant endorsed on the copy of the local notice as under:-
"I am trying to clear this amount on 6th July, 1998
-sd-
Hans R. Arora.
7. Since the defendant did not make payment and also resigned and left, the summary suit was filed.
8. The defendant filed an application for leave to defend being IA 12760/98. Reply was also filed by the plaintiff to the said application. On 19th December 2001, when the leave to defend application was taken up for arguments, some talk of amicable settlement came up but later on the next day, the talks failed and the mater was taken up for arguments.
9. On 26th February 2002, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that he would like to file additional documents and make necessary application for the said purpose. Thereafter nothing was done by the defendant for almost five long months. On 9th July, 2002, there was no appearance on behalf of the defendant, and the leave to defend application was dismissed in default.
10. Thereafter the matter came up on 10th July 2002, when after hearing arguments the judgment was reserved. At that stage the Court Master pointed out that there could be some confusion regarding the date being 11th July, 2002 and not 10th July 2002, whereupon the matter was fixed for 11th July 2002, on which date Sh. N.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the defendant did appear and did try to argue on the merits, but was informed that his application for leave to defendant also stands dismissed and he could advance his arguments on any technical aspects such as which could be submitted even in the absence of a leave to defend application (which was the result of the dismissal of IA 12760/08).
11. Since no such aspect could be pointed out, after the plaintiff reiterated the same very submissions made earlier, the judgment was reserved. An application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC being IA No. 6024/02 was filed on which notice was issued but thereafter the same was dismissed in default on 14th August, 2002.
12. Since the claim in the suit is of the nature contemplated by Order xxxvII CPC, and upon dismissal of the application for leave to defend, the consequence is as if no application for leave to defend at all was filed and, thereupon in terms of Order 37 Rule 3 Sub-rule 6(a) of CPC, the plaintiff became entitled to judgment forthwith. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer made in the plaint, and a decree for Rs. 12,80,143.21/- Along with the interest @ 18% pendente lite and future is passed in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed interest @ 24%, but considered the totality of the matter, I feel it appropriate to award pendente lite and future interest @ 18%. The plaintiff will also be entitled to his costs.
13. Suit is decreed cost with and interest as above.
Comments