Delhi District Court
Smt. Anita Jain vs M/S. Mahabir Parshad Satish Kumar on 5 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA,
SCJ CUM RC (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of :-
Smt. Anita Jain
W/o Sh. Shripal Jain
R/o 29/277, Dev Nagar, Gali No. 7,
Sonepat, Haryana-131001 ........... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. Mahabir Parshad Satish Kumar
Through its Prop. Satish Kumar
2. Satish Kumar
Shop No. 2033-D, Narela Mandi,
Delhi-110040 .......... Defendants
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNT0300276102019 Case No. 1271/2019 Under Section Recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- Date of Institution 25.10.2019 Date of Final Order 05.01.2022 Final Order Decreed
The present suit is under Order 37 CPC for recovery for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- filed by the plaintiff.
1. Succinctly stated facts as mentioned in the plaint are as under:-
Defendant No. 2 being the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 is CS No. 1271/2019 Anita Jain Vs. M/s. Mahabir Parshad Satish Kumar & Anr. 1/3 working as Commission Agent and used to invest money taken from public at large on interest. On 01.04.2016, plaintiff deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- as fixed deposit with the defendant @ 1.5% per month on an automatic renewal basis which is to be payable half yearly most probably by 31st March and 30th September of each calendar year. Pursuant to the said deposit, plaintiff received 5 half yearly interest payment i.e., on 30.09.2016, 31.03.2017, 30.09.2017, 31.03.2018 and 30.09.2018, however, thereafter, plaintiff has not received even a single penny. On 05.01.2019, plaintiff approached defendant No. 2 for getting back her principal amount and pursuant to that, defendant No. 2 handed over an outdated cheque No. 338480 dated 05.01.2018 for Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Branch Narela to plaintiff. On 15.01.2019, plaintiff alongwith her husband again approached the defendants for issuance of new cheque in place of said outdated cheque, defendant No. 2 made false excuses and gave assurance to them by stating that he will issue a fresh cheque as and when fresh cheque book would be available with him.
Thereafter, plaintiff made several requests to the defendant to return the amount but he kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or other. Thereafter, plaintiff issue a legal notice dated 17.09.2019 to defendant No.2 which was duly served upon him but of no avail. Hence, the present suit.
2. The summons were issued to the defendant and appearance was filed on behalf of defendants on 22.01.2020. Thereafter summons for judgment were also served upon them, however, despite service, no leave to defend application was filed on behalf of the defendants.
3. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of note dated 01.04.2016 executed by defendant, legal notice dated 17.09.2019, speed post receipt and tracking report. The suit of the plaintiff is well within limitation and covered under Order 37 CPC.
4. As no leave to defend application has been filed within stipulated CS No. 1271/2019 Anita Jain Vs. M/s. Mahabir Parshad Satish Kumar & Anr. 2/3 time on behalf of defendants, suit of the plaintiff is decreed and defendants are directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of institution of the suit up to the date of decree. Although, plaintiff has prayed for 18% per annum interest but that seems to be an exorbitant rate. The plaintiff is also awarded the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on 05.01.2022 DHIRENDR Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA A RANA Date: 2022.01.06 17:42:55 +05'30' (DHIRENDRA RANA) SCJ-cum-RC(North), Rohini, Delhi.
CS No. 1271/2019 Anita Jain Vs. M/s. Mahabir Parshad Satish Kumar & Anr. 3/3