Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Inderjeet vs Ram Das on 5 August, 2024

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

 In the matter of :-

 Mr. Inderjeet
 S/o Late Chander Bhan
 R/o A - 191, Nathupura, Burari,
 Delhi - 110084.                                        .....Plaintiff

                               VERSUS

 Sh. Ram Darash
 S/o Sh. Kiran Yadav
 R/o A - 174/B, Khasra No. 3/16,
 Extended Lal Dora, Village Nathupura,
 Burari, Delhi - 110084.

 Also at :-
 403, Shiv Mandir Wali Gali,
 Basant Dada Patil Nagar,
 T - Hut, Bhlaswa Dairy,
 Delhi - 110042.                                       .....Defendant

                          JUDGMENT

CNR No.                                  DLNT 0300 0469 2024
Case No.                                 302/24
Under Section                            XXXVII CPC
Date of Institution                      21/03/2024
Date of reserving for orders             05/08/2024
Date of Final Order                      05/08/2024
Final Order                              Suit decreed

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.

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

The Plaintiff and Defendant were known to each other and were having visiting terms. In the month of October, 2023, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff and requested him for providing loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- as he was in dire need of money on account of his personal need. The Plaintiff advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Defendant. In discharge of his debt and liability, Defendant had issued a cheque bearing no. 000015, dated 22/01/2024 for sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Mukund Pur Branch, Delhi and assured the Plaintiff that the same will be positively encashed on its presentation. However, when the Plaintiff presented the said cheque to its banker i.e. Union Bank of India, Burari, Delhi branch on 24/01/2024, the same was returned dishonoured vide cheque return memo dated 25/01/2024 with remarks "Funds Insufficient".

The Plaintiff served a Legal Notice dated 09/02/2024 to the Defendant through his Counsel which was dispatched on 15/02/2024. But the Defendant neither replied to the said legal notice nor paid the legally recoverable amount with interest thereupon. 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 which were received back as refused on 06/07/2024. Refusal is a deemed service upon the Defendant.

4. But thereafter neither did the Defendant appear nor did he file his address for service of notice on him within 10 days from the delivery of summons in compliance with Order XXXVII Rule 3 (1) CPC despite opportunity given. Defendant did not even appear for considering settlement with Plaintiff.

5. Hence, 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, in view of the provision provided under Order XXXVII Rule 2 (3) CPC, it is deemed that the Defendant has 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 in favour of Defendant. A suit based on a cheque squarely falls within the scope and ambit of the summary procedure prescribed under Order XXXVII of the CPC. Hence, Plaintiff is found entitled to recover Rs. 2,00,000/- from Defendant.

7. Further, Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum but 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 CS SCJ No. 302/24 Inderjeet Vs. Ram Darash Page 3 of 4 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 above said facts, circumstances and consideration the suit of Plaintiff is decreed and it is held that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith 6% p.a. pendente lite 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 by NEETI SURI NEETI Announced in the open Court SURI MISHRA Date:

on this 05th day of August, 2024 MISHRA 2024.08.05 16:23:50 +0530 (NEETI SURI MISHRA) SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI It is certified that this judgment contains 04 pages Digitally signed by NEETI NEETI SURI and every page is signed by me. SURI MISHRA Date: 2024.08.05 MISHRA 16:23:58 +0530 (NEETI SURI MISHRA) SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI CS SCJ No. 302/24 Inderjeet Vs. Ram Darash Page 4 of 4