Delhi District Court
Rama Arjun Retail Pvt Ltd vs Chandan Singh Negi S/O Bachan Singh Negi on 22 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE - 03
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. Kautuk Bhardwaj, DJS Digitally signed
Suit No. 612953/2016 by KAUTUK
Date:
KAUTUK
CNR No. DLWT03-002482-2016 2024.02.22
17:02:09
+0530
In the matter of:
Rama Arjun Retail Pvt. Ltd.
45, Cottage Enclave, A-4,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
Also at : Shop No. 6, Shiv Market,
A-4, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
................. Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Chandan Singh Negi
S/o Bachan Singh Negi,
C/o Ruchi Negi,
R/o H. No. 503-A, Sector-3,
RK Puram, New Delhi-110022.
Also at: C/o Mr. R.N. Bharti (Under-Secretary),
Central Soil and Material Research Station,
Outer Ring Road, Hauz Khas, Delhi-16,
Detp.: Electric Post-A.R.O.(009).
2. Rajinder Singh
S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh,
R/o L-425, JJ Colony,
Wazirpur, New Delhi-110052.
3. Vijay Singh
S/o Sh. Raghu Nath Prasad,
R/o H. No. 1081, Sector 3,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.
.............. Defendant
Date of institution of Suit : 03/08/2016
Date on which judgment was reserved : 03/02/2024
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 22/02/2024
CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. The Case:
At this outset, it would be pertinent to record that plaintiff had filed a summary suit against the defendant. However, vide order dated 31/07/2018, upon the application of defendant no. 1 leave to defend was granted to the defendants. Further, defendant no. 2 & 3 were added as necessary parties to the present suit vide order dated 21/12/2016. It would be pertinent to record that defendant no. 2 & 3 did not appear despite service of summons.
The present suit has been instituted for recovery of a sum Rs. 1,76,670/- along with pendent-lite & future interest.
2. Plaintiff's case:
It is the case of the plaintiff that on 24/01/2015, the defendant had purchased two Dell Inspiron 1540 Laptops and a Canon Photo Copier alongwith printer and keyboard from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,01,670/-. In lieu of the said transaction, defendant had paid an advance of Rs. 25,000/-, issued a security cheque and further executed a promissory note for repayment of remaining amount of Rs. 1,76,670/-. The defendant no. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors to the said promissory note. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have failed to repay the residue amount and further the security cheque issued by the defendant no. 1 was dishonoured. Based on these facts, the plaintiff has filed the the present suit for recovery of due amount alongwith other consequential reliefs.CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 2 of 19
3. Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendant no. 1 filed the application for grant of leave to defendant and leave to defend was granted to the defendants. Defendant no. 2 & 3 did not appear despite service of summons. Defendant no. 1 has filed his written statement.
4. Defendant's case:
In his written statement, the defendant no. 1 has raised preliminary objection on the ground that the goods alleged to have been transacted as an ascertained good and hence, as per the provision of Sales of Goods Act no liability would pass upon the defendant. Objection has also been raised as to the incorporation of the plaintiff company. The defendant has completely denied the version supplied by the plaintiff. It is his case that defendant no. 1 had received loan of Rs. 25,000/- in cash @ 5% per month on 25/05/2013. In lieu of the said loan amount, defendant had issued a blank signed cheque. It is contended that the defendant had never purchased alleged goods and no documents were executed in favour of the plaintiff. It is further, alleged that the plaintiff is purely operating a money lending business and is not a supplier of the alleged goods. Defendant has further denied all the documents (except the cheque, wherein the signatures has been admitted, however, the contents are stated to have been filled by the plaintiff) viz. invoices, promissory note etc. Based on these facts, the defendant has sought the dismissal of the present suit.
5. Reply to the written statement:
In the replication, the plaintiff has denied all the averments made in the written statement, and reiterated those CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 3 of 19 made in the plaint.
6. Issues:
Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 15/12/2018 by the Ld. Predecessor Court:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.
2,26,000/- as prayer for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, at what rate and for what period?OPP
3. Relief, if any.
7. Plaintiff's Evidence:
7.1 To prove its case, AR of plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-
1/1 wherein he reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
Sr. Documents Exhibit/Mark
No.
1 Original Board Resolution Ex. PW-1/A
2 Certified copy of bill/invoice Ex. PW-1/B
3 Original promissory note Ex. PW-1/C
4 Certified copy of receipt of goods Ex. PW-1/D
5 Certified copy of dishonoured Ex. PW-1/E
cheque
6 Certified copy of return memo Ex. PW-1/G
7 Certified copy of postal receipt Ex. PW-1/H
CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 4 of 19
8 Certified copy of proof of delivery Ex. PW-1/I
9 Original ledger account Ex. PW-1/J
7.2 PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the defendant. No other witness has been produced by the plaintiff and PE was closed vide order dated 20/09/2019.
8. Defendant's Evidence:
8.1 To rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant examined himself as DW-1 and he had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. 8.2 DW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. No other witness has been produced by the defendant and DE was closed vide order dated 14/01/2020.
9. Evidenced in pursuance to direction of the court u/s 165 of Indian Evidence Act:
Vide order dated 04/10/2021, the court had directed the plaintiff to produce the original Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff company alongwith VAT details. The AR of plaintiff was further cross-examined on 30/10/2021 wherein, the DVAT 06 Form and the independent auditor report was exhibited. Plaintiff had further filed on record the Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of plaintiff company alongwith the incorporation certificate of the company.
10. Appreciation and findings:
The issues are adjudicated as under:-CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 5 of 19
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 2,26,000/-, as prayed for ? OPP Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, at what rate and for what period? OPP 10.1 The adjudication of both the issues would require similar assessment/ appreciation of law and facts. Hence, both are being analysed simultaneously.
10.2 Now, for the ease of comprehending the operative part of this judgment, it has been categorised into following parts:
a) Material facts upon which the parties have relied to prove/dispute the entitlement of relief .
b) Objections as to maintainability - as raised by the Defendant.
c) Appreciation of evidence led qua the material facts.
Material facts upon which the parties have relied to prove/dispute the entitlement of relief 10.3 Plaintiff's case- The plaintiff has relied upon the following facts to demonstrate his entitlement for the relief:
Defendant had purchased on 24.01.2015 two Dell Inspiron 1540 laptop and a canon photocopier along with printer and keyboard from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,01,670/-.
The defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/ as advance and had further executed a promissory note as CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 6 of 19 well as a Post dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,76,670/-.
Defendant failed to repay the remaining balance of Rs.
1,76,670/-.
10.4 Defendant's case- Per contra, the defendant has raised his defence on the strength of following facts:
Plainitiff is operating a money lending business and the defendant had approached for a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. The said loan has already been repaid.
Defendant had issued blank signed cheque as security. The signature on the promissory note has been denied.
The goods alleged to be sold to the defendant is unascertained and hence there is no transfer of goods.
Plaintiff company has not been registered as per the Company Act Objections as to maintainability-as raised by the Defendant Maintainability of the suit filed by plaintiff company 10.5 It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff company has not been incorporated and hence no suit could have been filed on its behalf. It is also alleged that the alleged directors of the company have not been The onus of proving this fact was on the party which has asserted it i.e. defendant.
However, defendant has not brought on record a shred of evidence to show that the company has not been incorporated. On other hand, in pursuance to the directions of the court u/s. 165 CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 7 of 19 of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff had duly brought on record the certificate of incorporation as well as the AOA and MOA of the plaintiff company. The bare perusal of the said documents reflect that the plaintiff company Rama Arjun Private Limited is duly incorporated. Furthermore, as observed above, no evidence has been brought on record by the defendant to prove otherwise. The arguments pertaining to DIN issuance to the directors is also brefet of any substance and shall fall on the same ground.
Sale of un-ascertained goods 10.6 It is contended by the defendant no. 1 that the goods alleged to be transacted were not ascertained goods and no property in the goods could have transferred to the defendant no.1, hence no liability can be imposed as a consequence. Ld Counsel for the defendant has further relied upon the judgment of Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. v. Union of India, (1961) 3 SCR 820 : AIR 1961 SC 1214 : (1962) 32 Comp Cas 845 and P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar v. Express Newspapers Ltd., (1968) 2 SCR 239 : AIR 1968 SC 741. The relevant extract has been reproduced below:
P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar v. Express Newspapers Ltd., (1968) 2 SCR 239 : AIR 1968 SC 741 " 12. Section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act provides that where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods no property the goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. It is a condition precedent to the passing property under a contract of sale that the goods are ascertained.
The condition is not fulfilled where there is a contract for sale of a portion of a specified larger stock. Till the portion is identified and appropriated to the contract, no property passes to the buyer. In Gillett v. Hill [(1834) 2 C&M 535 : 149 ER 871, 873] Bayley, B. said:
CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 8 of 19"Where there is a bargain for a certain quantity extra greater quantity, and there is power of selection in the vendor to deliver which he thinks fit, then the right to them does not pass to the vendee until the vendor has made his selection, and trover is not maintain able before that is done. If I agree to deliver a certain quantity of oil as ten out of eighteen tons, no one can say which part of the whole quantity I have agreed to deliver until a selection is made. There is no individuality until it has been divided."
Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. v. Union of India, (1961) 3 SCR 820 : AIR 1961 SC 1214 : (1962) 32 Comp Cas 845 " 14. The contention on behalf of the Union of India is that property in the goods cannot pass in law to the holders of the pucca delivery orders till the goods are actually appropriated to the particular order; therefore, as in this case it is not in dispute that no goods were actually appropriated towards the pucca delivery orders concerned, the property in the goods did not pass to the holders thereof but was still in the mills. Reliance in this connection is placed on Section 18 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 3 of 1930. That section lays down that "where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods, no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained". In the present case, as we have already said it is not in dispute that the goods covered by the pucca delivery orders are not ascertained at the time such orders are issued and ascertainment takes place in the shape of appropriation when the goods are actually delivered in compliance therewith. Therefore, till appropriation takes place and goods are actually delivered, they are not ascertained. The contract therefore represented by the pucca delivery orders is a contract for the sale of unascertained goods and no property in the goods is transferred to the buyer in view of Section 18 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act till the goods are ascertained by appropriation, which in this case takes place at the time only of actual delivery. The appeal court in our opinion was therefore right in holding that the property in the goods included in the pucca delivery orders did not pass to the holders thereof in view of Section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act in spite of the decision in the case of the Anglo- India Jute Mills Co. [ILR (1911) XXXVIII Cal. 127] What that case decided was that in a suit between a holder of a pucca delivery order -- be he the first holder or a subsequent holder who has purchased the pucca delivery order in the market -- and the mills, there will be an estoppel and the mill will be estopped from denying that cash had been paid for the goods to which the CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 9 of 19 delivery order related and that they held the goods for the holder of the pucca delivery order. That case therefore merely lays down the rule of estoppel as between the mill and the holder of the pucca delivery order and in a suit between them the mill will be estopped from denying the title of the holder of pucca delivery orders; but that does not mean that in law the title passed to the holder of the pucca delivery order as soon as it was issued even though it is not disputed that there was no ascertainment of goods at that time and that the ascertainment only takes place when the goods are appropriated to the pucca delivery orders at the time of actual delivery. The appeal court was, in our opinion, right in holding that the effect of the decision in the case of Anglo-India Jute Mills Co. [ILR (1911) XXXVIII Cal. 127] was not that the property in the goods passed by estoppel and that that case only decided that as between the seller and the holder of the pucca delivery order, the seller will not be heard to say that there was no title in the holder of the delivery order. That case was not dealing with the question of title at all as was made clear by Jenkins, C.J. but was merely concerned with estoppel. In the present case the question whether the Government of India will be estopped is a matter which we shall consider later; but so far as the question of title is concerned, there can be no doubt in view of Section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act that title in these cases had not passed to the holders of the pucca delivery orders on September 30, 1946, for the goods were not ascertained till then, whatever may be the position of the holders of the pucca delivery orders in a suit between them and the mills to enforce them."
10.7 Ld. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently argued, basing his reliance on the afore cited judgments, that the goods in the present facts were unascertained and hence the sale qua which repayment was sought had not been completed. In order to substantiate his argument, he has mainly relied upon the Ex. PW-1/B (invoice/bill) and PW-1/D (receiving of goods). It is contended that there is no serial number mentioned on Ex. PW- 1/B and PW-1/D and in the absence of the same the goods were not ascertainable. It pertinent to record that the defendant has denied entering into contract for sale of goods in totality. The present line of argument (qua unascertainable goods) is merely by way of a demurrer claim. Defendant has conveniently chosen CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 10 of 19 to ignore the claim of the plaintiff that the goods in pursuance to the contract have already been delivered on the date of the contract. Without going into the veracity of the said delivery (which shall be appreciated later on), the moment the goods are stated to have been delivered there can be no question whatsoever as to ascertainbility of the goods. As the goods in the hand of the purchaser will be the specific good for which the contract was entered into. It is not the case of the defendant that he intended to purchase any specific model of laptop, copier etc. Moreover, the bill/invoice clearly mention the model number of the goods purchased. Hence, the entire argument of the defendant appears to be misconceived and based on the cherry picked version of the plaintiff's case. Hence, the argument of the defendant that the sale had not taken place as the goods were un- ascertainable shall fall.
Appreciation of evidence led qua the material facts 10.8 The marshalling of facts and the appreciation of evidence has been done being conscious of the statutorily prescribed rule that the burden of proof shall remain stationary and the onus of proof will shift as a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence.
10.9 Plaintiff has examined only witness to prove its case. The plaintiffs witness, in order to prove the transaction in question, has primarily relied upon the certified copy of the bill, promissory note, receipt of goods and dishonoured cheque issued by the defendant. Furthermore, in pursuance to the exercise of powers under S. 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff had brought on record form of DVAT-06, which is Ex. PW-1/C-1, CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 11 of 19 Independent Auditor report, which is Ex. PW-1/C-2, Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association.
10.10 Per contra, defendant has only examined himself as the witness and no documents have been relied upon by the defendant. The defendant in his written statement as well as in his examination in chief had admitted to the signatures on the dishonoured cheque, albeit as a blank signed security cheque for the alleged loan. Now, let us proceed with analysing the cross- examination of both the witness, in order to appreciate whether the material facts has been successfully proved.
10.11 In his cross-examination dated 03.08.2019, it is deposed by PW-1, that there are two directors in the plaintiff company. Witness has failed to recollect the DIN and stated that the same is mentioned in MOA and AOA of the company. It is deposed that the incorporation certificate has not been filed with the record, however he had the same in court (Not called for by the defendant). It has been denied that there is no such company named as Rama Arjun Retail Pet. Ltd. on the website of ROC. It is deposed that the model number of the products sold has been mentioned in Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/D. It is stated that the transacted goods were purchased from RM Traders and the bills through which item were purchased though have not been filed, yet the same is available with him in court at the time of deposition. (Not called for by the defendant). It has been denied that defendant no. 1 had taken loan of Rs. 25,000/- and had merely signed the cheque (Ex. PW-1/E), the remaining details having been filed by the plaintiff. It is deposed that the plaintiff sells the goods on cash basis and credit basis. It is admitted that there is no serial number mentioned on Ex. PW-1/B and PW-1/D. CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 12 of 19 10.12 Defendant no. 1, while deposing as DW-1, has stated that he is working as scientist class-1 officer, Ministry of water resources, Government of India and his gross salary at present is Rs. 1,10,000/- per month. The witness has denied his signatures on Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D, whereas signature on Ex. PW- 1/E has been admitted. It is stated that defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 is known to him and it is further stated that defendant no. 2 is doing job in the department of defendant no. 1. Defendant has denied the loan transaction. It is deposed that no loan agreement was executed for the loan of Rs. 25,000/-. It is deposed that no complaint was lodged against the plaintiff with respect to the misuse of the cheque, it is stated that the address of the plaintiff had changed and new address was not known, hence no complaint was made.
10.13 Now, upon the due appreciation of the above facts and evidence, it can be safely concluded that plaintiff has been successfully able to prove his case on the scale of preponderance of probability. The reasons for the said observation has been discussed henceforth. The document Ex. PW-1/B reflect that the sale of the goods in question was entered between the parties and the said the goods were received by the defendant as per the acknowledgment receipt PW-1/D. The objection qua Ex. PW-1/B was two fold. One, that the same doesn't contain the unique serial number of the product sold and secondly, pertained to the absence of VAT number. The former objection has already been dealt above under the heading of maintainability. The issue of VAT number was clarified by the plaintiff in pursuance to his examination under s. 165 of the Evidence Act. Plaintiff, in his examination deposed that the TIN no. 07820424299 is mentioned CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 13 of 19 on the invoice itself and the said number is reflected in the form of DVAT-06, which is Ex. PW-1/C-1. Defendant had denied his signature on Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/C, whereas the signature on Ex. PW-1/E has been admitted. The execution of the cheque (Ex PW-1/E) by the defendant and his signature on it are not in dispute. Once the admission as to execution of the negotiable instrument is shown to exist, the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall come into play. In order to understand its legal effect, it would be expedient to lay bare the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of M/s Kumar Exports Vs. M/s Sharma Carpets, 2009 (2) SCC 513, wherein it was held:
"As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.
11. The use of the phrase "until the contrary is proved" in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words "unless the contrary is proved" in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of "may presume" and "shall presume" as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over."
10.14 The upshot of the above discussion is that once the execution of a cheque/negotiable instrument stands admitted, the Court will make a rebuttable presumption that it was made or drawn for consideration. The said presumption would stand in CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 14 of 19 favour of the payee and onus to rebut the same would be on the executor of the instrument to rebut the same. The next material consideration which arises is the manner in which this onus is to be discharged, the law in this regard has been categorically dealt by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Shri Mohan, 2010 (11) SCC 441, wherein it was held:
"The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that it did not exist."
10.15 Now, let us proceed with the examination as to whether the presumption has been rebutted by the defendant. It is his case that the cheque was not issued for the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,76,670/-. Defendant had asserted that Plainitiff is operating a money lending business and the defendant had approached for a loan of Rs. 25,000/-. The said loan has already been repaid and the cheque in question was merely issued as security to the loan. It has been harped upon by the defendant that the cheque in question was issued as a blank signed cheque and the details including the amount was filled by the plaintiff. However, as the legal position stands, once the execution of the cheque is admitted the filling of the particulars would neither rebut the presumption nor would effect the legality of the instrument. The relevant extract of Bir Singh (supra) is CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 15 of 19 reproduced below:
"38. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence."
10.16 The evidence manifests that the defendant has miserably failed to rebut the presumption. The enervated attempt in rebutting the presumption was made in the from of defence that the cheque was issued as security for a loan which was already repaid. The defendant has failed to prove this fact on material particulars. It was asserted but not proved that the plaintiff was into money lending business, on the contrary the MOA produced by the plaintiff reflect that they are dealing with the goods contended to be transacted with the defendants i.e. "laptops, electrical and electronic items" et al. The factum of loan and its repayment itself has not been proved by the defendant. It is not a case where the loan has been borrowed from a known person or acquaintance, hence it is not a believable fact that no acknowledgement would have been taken at the time of borrowing or the repayment of the instalment. The version of the loan is further drenched in doubt as the defendant is admittedly working as scientist class-1 officer, Ministry of water resources, Government of India and his gross salary at present is Rs. 1,10,000/- per month (as on 23.11.2019). Even considering the fact, that the loan was taken four years prior, the financial exigency for the said loan has not been shown. The pleading is completely silent on the purpose for the loan. This would have thrown light on the circumstances compelling a Class-1 officer to CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 16 of 19 procure a meagre loan of Rs. 25,000/-. Interestingly, the guarantors of the loan i.e. defendant no. 2 and 3 are known to the defendant. It is admitted that defendant no. 2 works in the office of the defendant and the from the address of the defendant no. 3 it can be deduced that he lives in the neighbourhood of the defendant. The defendant has not explained the role of these defendants in his pleadings. How the plaintiff would have otherwise become aware about the other defendants has not been brought forth, thereby further casting doubt on the defendant's version.
10.17 Furthermore, from the cross-examination of DW-1, it has also emerged that he made no complaint against nor issued any legal notice to the plaintiff against the alleged misuse of the cheque. The change of address can have no bearing on the simple lodging of police complaint. This conduct of the defendant also belies the defence set up by him.
Conclusion 10.18 Thus, the defendant has not been able to rebut that the cheque Ex PW-1/E was not given for consideration to the plaintiff and that it was given as a security for a loan which has already been repaid. Whereas, the plaintiff has successfully established on the scale of preponderance of probability that a sale transaction was entered between the parties for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,01,670/-. Out of the said amount the defendants owes the principal amount of Rs. 1,76,670/-.
Awarding of interest on the outstanding amount 10.19 The plaintiff has successfully established his claim for the recovery of Rs 1,76,670/-. Perusal of prayer clause CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 17 of 19 reflects that plaintiff has further claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of present suit till the realization of the amount. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is entitled to claim only reasonable interest and the charging of exorbitant interest rate is not just contrary to the public policy but also wiled the mandate of s. 23 of Indian Contract Act. It is within the powers of the court to reduce the rate of interest, where a party has sought exorbitant rate of interest. (See : Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. Vs DDA, 2010 SCC Online Del 2444).
In light of the mandate of laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this court is of the considered opinion that in the present facts and circumstances, the claimed interest rate of 24 % per annum appears to be excessive and the plaintiff would be duly compensated if the plaintiff is granted interest @ 9 % per annum pendente lite interest from 12/03/2015 till the date of the order and future interest @ 4% per annum till the realization of the amount.
10.20 Accordingly, both the issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent discussed above.
11. Relief:
a) The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a total amount of Rs.
1,76,670/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum pendente lite interest from 12/03/2015 till the date of the order and future interest @ 4% per annum till the realization of the amount.
b) All interim application(s) stand dismissed as infructuous.
CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 18 of 1912. Plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly upon payment of deficit court fees.
14. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by KAUTUK Announced in open KAUTUK Date: 2024.02.22 court on 22.02.2024 17:02:24 +0530 (KAUTUK BHARDWAJ) CIVIL JUDGE-03/WEST THC/DELHI/22.02.2024 CS SCJ 12953/16 RAMA ARJUN RETAIL PVT LTD Vs. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI Page 19 of 19