Delhi High Court
Pritpal Singh Bhatia vs Kulwant Singh on 8 November, 2011
Author: G.S.Sistani
Bench: G.S.Sistani
23.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1066/2011
PRITPAL SINGH BHATIA ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Adv.
versus
KULWANT SINGH ..... Defendant
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
ORDER
% 08.11.2011
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.27,10,250/-.
2. Summons were issued to the defendant in the prescribed form. Affidavit of service has been filed by the plaintiff. In the order dated 17.9.2011, the Joint Registrar has noticed that defendant was served on 3rd or 13th August, 2011. The defendant has failed to enter appearance. None is present on behalf of the defendant today.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in the month of May, 2006, defendant approached the plaintiff and requested for a loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs but the plaintiff expressed his inability to extend such a huge amount as plaintiff was to purchase a car for himself and therefore offered Rs.6-7 lakhs. Then the defendant represented to the plaintiff that defendant will purchase the car in his name by financing the same from a Bank and hand over the same to the plaintiff and defendant will continue to repay the loan amount in instalment and amount to be spent by the plaintiff for purchase of car may be given to him as financial installment. Keeping in view, the family relations, plaintiff agreed to the proposal made by the defendant. Consequent to the same, defendant purchased the Skoda car in his name, which was meant for the plaintiff only and the same was delivered at the residence of the plaintiff itself by the Continental Auto Service. The car was purchased by defendant by taking loan from ICICI Bank in June, 2006.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant made default in making the payment of monthly installments with respect to the loan from ICICI Bank for which the Bank filed a recovery suit against defendant and a Receiver was appointed. Plaintiff came to know about this fact on 25.7.2008 when the receiver came to repossess the vehicle and took the custody of the vehicle. Plaintiff immediately informed the defendant, who apologized for the same. The defendant visited Delhi on 24.08.2008 along with his friend. The parties settled the accounts and defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- to the plaintiff in full and final settlement. Parties also signed a document styled as a "Settlement of Loan". Copy of which has been placed on record. Defendant handed over a cheque of Rs.18.50 lakhs, drawn on Indian Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, bearing no.701233 dated 4.9.2008 to the plaintiff. Defendant also assured that the aforesaid cheque would be encashed on presentation. Counsel further submits that on presentation the CS(OS) 1066/2011 2/3 aforesaid cheque was dishonoured with the remark "insufficient funds" vide returning memo dated 5.9.2008. The plaintiff thereafter issued a legal notice dated 10.9.2008 to the defendant, which was sent through registered AD as well as through Certificate of Posting. Despite service of legal notice, defendant has failed to make the payment.
5. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the documents placed on record. Despite service defendant has failed to enter appearance. Accordingly, the present suit of the plaintiff is decreed in the sum of Rs.27,10,250/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 8%, per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till realization with cost. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
I.A.NOS.7107/2011, 8005/2011 & 13441/2011.
6. Applications stand disposed of in view of the order passed in the suit.
G.S.SISTANI,J NOVEMBER 08, 2011 msr CS(OS) 1066/2011 3/3