Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Kunal Yadav vs Satgur Singh on 28 August, 2024

        IN THE COURT OF MS NEETI SURI MISHRA,
       SCJ CUM RC (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI


 In the matter of :-


 Sh. Kunal Yadav
 S/o Sh. Ajit Singh
 R/o B - 258, Swaroop Nagar,
 Delhi - 110042.                                           .....Plaintiff


                               VERSUS


 Sh. Satgur Singh
 S/o Not Known
 R/o House No. 5-B, Railway Colony,
 Kalka, Panchkula,
 Haryana - 133302.                                    .....Defendant



                          JUDGMENT

CNR No.                                  DLNT 0300 2081 2023
Case No.                                 1057/23
Under Section                            XXXVII CPC
Date of Institution                      21/09/2023
Date of reserving for orders             28/08/2024
Date of Final Order                      28/08/2024
Final Order                              Suit decreed

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.

2. The brief facts for disposal of the present suit are as follows :-

The Defendant is the employee of Sh. Deepak Sharma, R/o Panchkula, Haryana who is the friend of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff used to visit Panchkula twice in a month to meet his friend. There Plaintiff was acquainted with the Defendant and also became good friends with him.

In the month of November, 2021, when the Plaintiff visited Panchkula, the Defendant met him and asked for financial assistance of Rs. 6,00,000/- from Plaintiff as he wanted to construct his house. The Plaintiff denied the same but on the assurance of the Defendant that he is an employee of Sh. Deepak Sharma and seeing the terms between the Plaintiff, Sh. Deepak Sharma and the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to his request and gave Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to the Defendant. On 03/12/2021, the Defendant alongwith his wife visited the Office of Plaintiff at Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and received Rs. 3,00,000/-.

The Plaintiff asked for some security from Defendant in order to secure his money. Then the Defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 10018335, dated 25/06/2022 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Federal Bank, Panchkula, duly filled at the office of Plaintiff, situated at Swaroop Nagar.

In the month of July, 2022, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repay the loan amount. The Defendant assured the Plaintiff that the cheque shall be encashed on its presentation but when the Plaintiff presented the said cheque, the same was returned back from the bank with remarks "Signature over the cheque was incomplete" vide returning memo dated 22/07/2022.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant and the Defendant made a false excuse that it might be due to some human error from the Bank's side. He requested the Plaintiff to wait for three months and further assured that the Defendant shall repay the loan amount very soon to the Plaintiff but the Defendant is still to discharge his liability towards the Plaintiff. He has not paid even a single penny towards his liability. The sole motive of the Defendant is to delay the payment is that the Plaintiff cannot file the complaint under Negotiable Instrument Act. The Defendant even left the job of Sh. Deepak harma just to evade from his liability towards the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 04/01/2023 through Registered Post which was duly served upon Defendant but the Defendant neither replied to the same nor paid even a single penny to the Plaintiff. Eventually, the Plaintiff had been constrained to file the present suit for recovery of loan amount.

3. Summons of the suit in the prescribed format given in Form 4 Appendix 'B' under Order XXXVII CPC were sent to Defendant and the same were duly served upon him on 06/05/2024.

4. The Defendant did not put his appearance as per Order XXXVII Rule 3 (1) within 10 days of receiving the summons or thereafter till date.

5. In view of the provision provided under Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC, it is deemed that the Defendant has CS SCJ No. 1057/23 Kunal Yadav Vs. Satgur Singh Page 3 of 5 admitted the case of Plaintiff and in the considered opinion of this Court, the Plaintiff is entitled to decree as per law.

6. The suit of the Plaintiff is based on cheque issued by Defendant in favour of Plaintiff. A suit based on a cheque squarely falls within the scope and ambit of the summary procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII of the CPC. Plaintiff is therefore entitled for decree in his favour.

7. Coming now to the aspect of interest. Although, Plaintiff has claimed the interest @ 24% per month, the same seems to be exorbitant. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444, has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Court by finding such rates of interest to be against the public policy. Any Contract, which is against the public policy, is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said Judgment was also relied upon by the Hon'ble Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in case bearing R.F.A. No. 823 of 2004, titled as Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain decided on 07/12/2018. The Hon'ble Single Bench has granted 9% p.a. interest instead of 24% per annum i.e. 2% per month.

8. In view of abovesaid facts and circumstances, the suit of Plaintiff is decreed and it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith 9% p.a. pendente lite CS SCJ No. 1057/23 Kunal Yadav Vs. Satgur Singh Page 4 of 5 and future interest from the date of institution of the suit till its realization from the Defendant. It is ordered accordingly.

9. The Plaintiff is also awarded with the costs of the suit.

10. Decree sheet be prepared after the Plaintiff pays the requisite Court fees, if any. File be consigned to Record-Room, after due compliance. Digitally signed NEETI by NEETI SURI Announced in the open Court SURI MISHRA Date:

on this 28th day of August, 2024 MISHRA 2024.08.28 16:41:34 +0530 (NEETI SURI MISHRA) SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI It is certified that this judgment contains 05 pages Digitally signed by NEETI SURI and every page is signed by me. MISHRA NEETI SURI MISHRA Date: 2024.08.28 16:41:41 +0530 (NEETI SURI MISHRA) SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI CS SCJ No. 1057/23 Kunal Yadav Vs. Satgur Singh Page 5 of 5