Bangalore District Court
Sri. Amarnath S.N vs Kanthamaney Polymer Pvt. Ltd on 18 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 18th day of February 2016
-: Present :-
Smt. Hemavathi, BBM, LL.B,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.2533/2015
Plaintiff: Sri. Amarnath S.N.
S/o Nabhirajaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Proprietor of FE Designs,
No. 35, 2nd Floor,
Vanivilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
[By Sri.N.P.Kallesh Gowda, Adv.,]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants:
1. Kanthamaney Polymer Pvt. Ltd.,
Office at:F-17(I), Phase-I
IDA, Jeedimetla,
Hyderabad-500055.
Represented by its Managing
Directors P.S. Ravichander.
2. Sri. P.S.Ravichander,
Managing Director,
Kanthamaney Polymer Pvt Ltd.,
2 O.S.No.2533/2015
Father name not known to the
plaintiff, aged about 50 years,
3. Smt. Uma RAvichander,
Director,
Kanthamaney Polymer Pvt Ltd.,
W/o P.S.RAvichander,
Aged about 45 years,
Defendants No.2 and 3 are also
residing at C/o A.G.Murali, No.616/2,
4th Cross, Chikka Banaswadi,
Bangalore-560 043.
[Ex-parte.]
: 17.03.2015
Date of Institution of the suit
Nature of suit : Money Suit
Date of commencement of : 04.12.2015
evidence
Date on which the judgment is : 18.02.2016
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
00 11 01
***
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,39,000/- with 3 O.S.No.2533/2015 interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and such other relief.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff is a Proprietor of FE Designs and owning dealership of CYPE dealing in business of Software and plaintiff and defendant No. 3 were college mates while studying Engineering in Shimoga and they were friends. Defendant No.1 was Managing Director and defendant No.2 was Director of Kanthamaney Polymer Pvt. Ltd., situated at F-17(I),Phase-I, IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad-500055 doing business in the field of Polymer sheets. After long time, defendant No.3 met plaintiff's office at Bangalore in November 2011 and approached the plaintiff in the 3rd week of March 2012 in his office and requested for a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 15% per month and the plaintiff arranged Rs.7,65,000/- and paid the said amount through online transfer in two payments ie., Rs.4,50,000/- on 22/3/2012 and 4 O.S.No.2533/2015 Rs.2,00,000/- on 26/3/2012 and Rs.1,15,000 to defendant No.2 in two payments ie., Rs.65,000 on 24/3/2012 and Rs.50,000 on 26/3/2012. After receipt of the said amount, prima facie acknowledged the same and sent a reply to the plaintiff through E-mail and he also undertaken to pay the said amount within 3 months with interest at the rate of 15% per month. Thereafter, he has not paid either towards interest or towards principal till August 2013. Subsequently, he paid Rs.50,000/- on 5/9/2013, 0n 7/9/2013 Rs.10,000/-, on 3/10/2013 Rs.11,500, on 5/11/2013 Rs.11,500/-, on 6/12/2013 Rs.11,500/-, on 6/01/2014 Rs.11,500/-, on 5/2/2014 Rs.11,500/- totally he paid Rs.1,17,500/- towards interest and still he is due a sumof Rs.10,39,000/- towards interest and principal. Inspite of several demands, defendants did not pay the amount. They went on postponing the same on one or the other reasons. Finally plaintiff approached the defendants 5 O.S.No.2533/2015 in the month of February 2015, but, they did not heed for his request. Hence filed the suit.
3. Inspite of service of summons Defendants did not appear before the Court. Hence placed ex-parte.
4. Plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.3.
5. The following point arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.3 borrowed Rs.7,65,000/- in the 3rd week of March 2012 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
3) What order or decree?
6. Heard the learned advocate for plaintiff. 6 O.S.No.2533/2015
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative. Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.3 borrowed hand-loan of Rs.7,65,000/- in 3rd week of March-2012 agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. Plaintiff apart from his oral evidence has produced Ex.P.1 computerized statement of account and computerized statement of E- mail conversation at Ex.P2 and computerized copy of statement of accounts of plaintiff issued by ICICI Bank.
9. It is further case of the plaintiff that he paid the said loan amount of Rs.7,65,000/- through online transfer by transferring Rs.4,50,000/- on 22/3/2012 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 26/3/2012 and Rs.1,15,000/- in two 7 O.S.No.2533/2015 payments ie., Rs.65,000/- on 24/3/2012 and Rs.50,000/- on 26/3/2012.
10. On going through Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a), it is seen that from the account of FE designs on 22/3/2012 Rs.4,50,000/- and on 26/3/2012 Rs.2,00,000 were transferred by RTGS to the account of Kanthamaney. Admittedly, this document does not reveal that said money transfer is nothing but hand-loan given to the defendant. Ex.P2, according to the plaintiff is E-mail conversation, where there is sentence that, "They are planning to give back this loan amount in three months". Of-course, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.3 which is self-declared certificate stating that contents of Ex.P.2 which is E-mail correspondence are true and it has not been tempered to the best of his knowledge. Of-course, as per section 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act, evidentiary value is to be given to any document taken out from electronic media. But, herein, it is the plaintiff has to prove that he has given loan 8 O.S.No.2533/2015 to the plaintiff. This document is dated: 8/3/2015. It reveals that this message was sent as it was sent on 31/3/2012. Herein admittedly, plaintiff though filed this suit alleging that defendants have not repaid the loan, he has not issued any legal notice prior to the filing of this suit. If the plaintiff has lent loan to the defendant No.3 and there is default in repaying the loan, he would have issued notice prior to the institution of this suit, which could have supported the case of plaintiff, than producing Ex.P.2. But, when the plaintiff has failed to issue any notice prior to the institution of this suit, it is hard to believe that there was money transaction between plaintiff and defendant No.3 as stated in Ex.P.2.
11. In Ex.P1(a) though it reveals that there was money transfer to defendant No.3 based on that, it cannot be said that it is in respect of loan said to have been borrowed by defendant No.3. Further with regard to payment of Rs.1,50,000/- there is no entry in Ex.P1 and 9 O.S.No.2533/2015 Ex.P1(a). But, the plaintiff relies on entry in Ex.P2. As I have already discussed above, no reliance can be placed on this document which is not sufficient to prove that there is loan transaction between plaintiff and defendants in the absence of any other corroborative documents. Therefore, I hold that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant has borrowed loan as stated interfering he plaint. Hence, I answer this Point in the Negative.
12. Point No.2: In view of my finding on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of February 2016) (Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** 10 O.S.No.2533/2015 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Sri. Amarnath
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Computerized copy of statement of accounts Ex.P2 Computerized copy of E-mail conversation Ex.P3 Certificate under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act filed by the plaintiff.
3. List of witnesses examined for defendant:
- NIL-
4. List of documents exhibited for defendant:
- NIL -
(Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** 11 O.S.No.2533/2015 12 O.S.No.2533/2015 Judgment pronounced in the open Court (Vide separate Judgment) ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Hemavathi) 13 O.S.No.2533/2015 XXXIX A.C.C & S. Judge, Bangalore City.