Delhi District Court
Parneet Singh vs Telic Chit Fund Pvt Ltd on 29 January, 2026
CS SCJ 230/23
Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. AAYUSHI SAXENA,
CIVIL JUDGE - 03, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI .
CS SCJ No. :- 230/2023
CNR No. :- DLCT030005132023
Mr. Parneet Singh,
S/o Sh. H.S. Bhandari,
Proprietor of Bhandari Auto Electricals,
At 2956, Ground Floor, Hamilton Road, Ram Bazar,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
Admn. Office
R/o 1/566, Ganda Nala Bazar, Digitally
signed by
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. AAYUSHI
AAYUSHI SAXENA
SAXENA Date:
2. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. 2026.01.29
16:18:22
Registered Office +0530
1690, Sector-28, Faridabad,
Haryana-121002.
3. Mrs. Hrjeet Kaur Bhatia,
W/o Jaspal Singh Bhatia,
R/o 240, 1st Floor, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009.
4. Mrs. Daljeet Kaur,
R/o 240, 1st Floor, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena)
Page no. 1 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ 230/23
Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
5. Office of the Registrar Chit Fund,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
13th Floor, Vyapar Bhavan,
Chit Fund Department, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
...Defendants
Date of Institution of the Suit : 28.01.2023
Date of Judgment : 29.01.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 2,14,500/- (Rs. TWO LAKH
FORTEEN THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED ONLY) ETC.
JUDGMENT
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of recovery of Rs. 2,14,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.12.2021 to 31.12.2022 alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realization and costs of the suit.
Brief Facts of the Case
2. In brief the case set up by the Plaintiff in his plaint is as under:-
2.1. Defendant no.1 is a private limited company and has been doing the business of chit fund and Defendant no 3 and 4 are its directors and are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd and they used to sign
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 2 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
and issue cheques for payment, time to time for the functioning of M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd;
2.2. The Plaintiff is a member /subscriber of Chit Fund run by Defendant no.1 and had deposited total chit amount of Rs. 2,14,500/- by way of cheques from January, 2021 to November, 2021 continuously;
2.3. After completion of chit of Plaintiff, chit fund company was liable to pay total amount along with dividend to Plaintiff, which remained unpaid. Plaintiff visited the office of Defendant no 1. as well as residence of Defendant no. 3 and 4 but they also refused to pay the amount;
2.4. Thereafter, the Plaintiff got a legal notice dated 19.09.2022 issued through his counsel but even after receipt of the said legal notice, the payment was not made by the Defendants;
2.5. Hence, the instant suit wherein the following reliefs have been claimed:
"i) Pass a money decree of Rs.2,14,500/- along with interest from 01.12.2021 to 31.12.2022 (13 months) @ 12% per annum i.e. Rs 27,885/- as interest and therefore total amount Rs. 2,42,385/- be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant;
ii). Award pendente lite interest @12% p.a. till realization;
iii) Award the Cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 3 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
iv). Pass any such further order relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant ."
Defence of the Defendant
3. Perusal of the file shows that Written Statement (in short 'WS') was filed on behalf of Defendant no 1 and 3 on 16.01.2024 but the same was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. On 01.02.2024, time was sought by Ld. Counsel for Defendant for filing the said application but order dated 06.03.2024 reflects that no such application was filed by the said Defendants. Vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, defence of Defendant no.1 and Defendant no.3 was struck off and W.S. filed by Defendant no.1 and Defendant no.3 was taken off record.
4. Vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, Defence of Defendant no.2 and Defendant no.4 was also struck off as no W.S. had been filed by them.
5. Defendant no.5 has contested the matter and filed W.S. wherein, it has been inter-alia stated that as per record available, no such company namely M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. was registered with Chit Fund Department, GNCTD for doing chit business. It has also been stated that the Plaintiff has himself
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 4 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
agreed that he had received reply from Defendant no. 5 and on receipt of letter dated 19.09.2022 from Sh.Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate, a letter dated 10.10.2022 was sent to the Joint Director (Chit Fund), Registrar Chit Fund-cum-Director, Department of Economic and Statistical Analysis, Haryana, Yojna Bhavan, Bays No.21-28, Sector-4, Panchkula-134114 and copy of the same was also sent to Sh. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Issues
6. After completion of the aforesaid pleadings and on the basis of the same, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 09.04.2024: -
1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.2,14,500/- as prayed for? OPP
2)Relief.
Evidence of Plaintiff
7. To substantiate his case, the Plaintiff examined Sh.
Shailender Kumar, Retail Branch Banking, HDFC Bank as PW1, who had proved the bank statement of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals, III-2956M, Ganda Nala Bazar, Kashmere Gate, North Delhi from 01.01.2021 to 30.11.2021, which was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 5 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
PW-2/A, bearing his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Bank Statement of Plaintiff Already Ex. PW1/A (7 pages)
2. Ledger Account of M/s Bhandari Ex. PW2/1 (1 page) Auto Electricals from 01.01.2021 to 30.05.2022
3. Legal notice dated 19.09.2022 Ex. PW2/2 (3 pages)
4. Speed post receipts. Ex.PW2/3 (2 pages)
5. Returned Speed Post Envelope Ex.PW2/4 (colly) (2 pages)
6. Letter dated 10.10.2022 from Ex. PW2/5 (1 page) Registrar Chit Fund Delhi
7. Letter dated 14.11.2022 from Ex. PW2/6 (1 page) Registrar Chit Funds cum Director, Panchkula, Haryana.
PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Proxy Counsel for Defendant no.3. Right of Defendant no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 to cross- examine PW2 stood closed vide order dated 10.09.2025, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Vide separate statement of PW2 (Plaintiff) recorded on 24.09.2025, PE was closed.
Evidence of Defendant
8. Since W.S. of only Defendant no. 5 was on record, so Defendant no. 5 was granted opportunity to lead D.E. However, despite opportunity, neither evidence affidavit was filed by Defendant no 5 nor anyone appeared on behalf of Defendant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 6 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
no.5. Accordingly, right to lead DE stood closed vide order dated 15.10.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments were advanced by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and Mr. Jatin S. Sethi,, Ld. Counsel for Defendant no. 3.
10. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff has been able to establish the liability of the Defendants on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities as the testimony of Plaintiff has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. He also argued that vide order dated 03.01.2024, application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed on behalf of Defendant no. 3, was dismissed and it was held by Ld. Predecessor of this court that Section 64 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 was not applicable to the present matter and hence jurisdiction of this court cannot be said to be barred under Section 64 of Chit Fund Act, 1982. He has further argued that the said order attained finality as it was not challenged by Defendant no. 3 and, hence this Court has jurisdiction to try the present matter.
Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth on the side of the Plaintiff, Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.3 argued that the Plaintiff has not mentioned in his plaint that he is the proprietor of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals and hence he has no locus standi to file the present suit. Further, it has also been argued that no witnesses were examined by the Plaintiff to prove letters Ex.PW2/5 and Ex.PW2/6 and hence the said
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 7 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
documents cannot be relied upon. Further, it has been argued that the Plaintiff has only levelled allegations against Defendant no. 1 and he has stated that the Chit Fund Company is liable to pay the total amount to the Plaintiff but there is no liability of Defendant no.3 as there is no concept of vicarious liability of directors in civil law. Further, it has been argued that the Defendant no.1 Telic Chit Fund is registered in the State of Haryana under the Chit Fund Act and hence filing of the suit by the Plaintiff is barred by Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. It has also been submitted that the Registrar of Chits, Haryana, is the competent authority to deal with the disputes, if any, after the matter is referred to the arbitrator, who has the jurisdiction to deal with the same. It has also been submitted that the Plaintiff had not taken appropriate steps to summon the Registrar of Chits to prove his case. Further, it has been argued that, in such circumstances, the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable, both on merits and on the point of law.
11. I have heard the submissions and perused the record carefully.
Findings
12. Significantly, all the issues are interlinked and inter-
connected and therefore these have been dealt with together for the purpose of analysis and adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 8 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
13. At the outset, it is important to mention that standard of proof required for deciding civil cases such as the present one is preponderance of probability.
14. It is the Plaintiff's pleaded case that he was a member/subscriber of chit fund group run by Defendant no. 1(a private limited company) for which he had deposited Rs.2,14,000/- through cheques from January 2021 to November 2021 and the said fact has been duly proved by bank statement of the Plaintiff Ex. PW1/A. Plaintiff has also proved ledger account of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals Ex. PW2/1 from January 2021 to May 2022 showing that amount of Rs. 2,14,500/- remained outstanding on account of Defendant company, which the Defendant failed to pay The said documents i.e. bank statement Ex. PW1/A and Ledger account Ex. PW2/1 remained unchallenged and uncontroverted on account of the fact that the defence of Defendant no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 was struck off and, hence the contents of Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/1 have to be accepted as correct.
15. During the course of arguments on behalf of Defendant no 3, the suit of the Plaintiff has been objected to on the following grounds:
15.1. It has been argued on behalf of Defendant no. 3 that in the Plaint it has neither been mentioned that Mr. Parneet Singh is the proprietor of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals, nor it has been mentioned that the payment was made by him on behalf of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals and, hence
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 9 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Parneet Singh has no locus standi to file the present suit in his personal capacity.
This argument of Ld. Counsel for Defendant no 3, to my mind, is misconceived and legally untenable as in the memo of parties and the affidavit filed along with the plaint, Mr. Parneet Singh has been stated to be the proprietor of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals and memo of parties and affidavit are a part of the plaint only. Further, at page 2 of the legal demand notice Ex.PW2/2, that was sent on behalf of the Plaintiff to all the Defendants, it has been mentioned that Mr. Parneet is the proprietor of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals. Also, a perusal of the bank account statement Ex. PW 1/A, shows that the bank account is in the name of M/s Bhandari Auto Electricals and e-Mail ID of Mr. Parneet has been mentioned.
Needless to mention that in law, a sole proprietorship firm has no separate legal identity and in fact is a business name of the sole proprietor. Thus, any reference to sole propri- etorship firm means and includes sole proprietor thereof and vice versa. In view thereof, it can be said that the Plaintiff i.e. Mr. Parneet Singh has instituted the present case being the proprietor of M/s Bhandari Auto Electri- cals.
15.2. Secondly, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for Defen-
dant no. 3 that the Defendant company is registered u/s 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 under the name and style of M/s Telic Chit Fund Private Limited and hence, the present suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 10 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
is hit by Section 64 of Chit Fund Act, 1982, which makes it abundantly clear that the dispute between the parties has to be settled before the Registrar for arbitration and the deci- sion of said arbitrator shall be final. Hence, it has been ar- gued that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present matter.
This argument of Ld. Counsel for Defendant has to be re- jected at the outset due to the following reasons:
(i) Vide order dated 03.01.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, application under order VII Rule 11 CPC, filed on behalf of Defendant no. 3, was dismissed and it was held by Ld. Predecessor of this Court that a perusal of the Plaint and the documents filed therewith and as per Defen-
dant no. 1's own document shows that Defendant no 1 is registered under Companies Act,1956 and no document had been filed by the Defendants to show that Defendant no.1 is registered under Chit Fund Act,1982. It was also observed in the said order that a perusal of WS filed by Defendant no.5 as well as letter dated 14.11.2022, by Registrar, Chit Funds, Haryana to Registrar, Chit Fund, Government of NCT of Delhi shows that Defendant no.1 company is not registered with either Registrar, Chit Funds, Haryana or Delhi. It was also observed that in absence of any document to show that the Defendant is registered under Chit Funds Act, section 64 of the said Act has no application in the present matter and hence jurisdiction of this Court cannot be said to be barred under Section 64 of Chit Funds Act,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 11 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1982. This order was not challenged by the defendants and hence it attained finality.
(ii) Moreover, no document has been filed by the Defen- dants to substantiate that Defendant no.1 M/s Telic Chit Fund Private Limited is registered u/s 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, as claimed by Defendant no 3.
(iii) It is worthwhile to mention here that in the W.S. filed on behalf of Defendant no. 5, it has been stated that as per record, no such company namely M/s Telic Chit Fund Pri- vate Limited is registered with Chit Fund Department, GNCT of Delhi for doing Chit Fund business. This goes on to show that M/s Telic Chit Fund Private Limited is not registered with Chit Fund Department, GNCT of Delhi for doing Chit Fund business.
(iv) Also, letter Ex.PW2/5 [issued by Mr. Raj Kumar, Sec- tion Officer/HOO, Govt of NCT Of Delhi, Office of the Registrar Chit Fund, New Delhi to Joint Director (Chit Fund), Registrar Chit Fund-cum-Director, Haryana] and letter Ex.PW2/6 [issued by Registrar of Chit Funds-cum- Director, Department of Economic and Statistical Analysis, Haryana, Yojna Bhavan, Bays No.21-28, Sector-4, Panchkula-134114 to Registrar, Chit Fund Department, Govt. of NCT Delhi, New Delhi] further go on to prove that the said M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. has neither been registered by Registrar, Chit Fund, Haryana nor has it de- posited security in favour of Registrar, Chit Fund, Haryana under the Haryana Chit Fund Rule,2018. These documents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 12 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Ex.PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 also remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
(v) At this juncture, I would like to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s Sree Gokulam Chit And Finance Vs. G. Vijaykumar S.A. No. 559 of 2008 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Madras upheld the judgement of Ld. Trial Court and it was observed by Hon'ble Madras High Court that on the facts, Ld. Trial Court had found that the chits were unregistered and also found that there were certain discrepancies while comparing the documents filed by the Plaintiffs and that filed by the Defendants. It was also observed that Ld. Trial Court did not accept the claim of the Defendants that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 64 (3) of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and in view thereof, suit of the Plaintiff was decreed vide judgement dated 07.02.2007.
(vi) From the above discussion and applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the above- mentioned judgment, it is clear that jurisdiction of this Court cannot be said to be barred as M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd was not registered under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, either in Delhi or in Haryana.
15.3. Lastly, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for Defendant no.3 that Late Sh. Jaspal Singh Bhatia was looking after the Company and Defendant no.3 was only a sleeping director and did not look after day-to-day affairs of the company and hence she is not personally liable for the claims made
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 13 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
against her. He had further argued that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose any cause of action against Defendant no.3 and that there is no privity of contract between Plain- tiff and Defendant no. 3 with respect to the claims for re- covery of dues for alleged unpaid chit amount and dividend sought in the plaint.
a) It is a settled law that in a suit for recovery of money, only such persons can be impleaded as Defendants against whom averments are made, which on proof would entitle the Plaintiff to a de- cree whether jointly or severally or in the alterna- tive against the said persons named as Defendants. The other facet of the aforesaid proposition of law is that there must be a cause of action disclosed against a person impleaded as a Defendant.
b) A company is a juristic person and therefore, a company has to act through a living human being. Collectively, decisions on behalf of the company, are taken by the board of directors of a company. An individual director has no power to act on be- half a company of which he is a director, unless there is a specific resolution of the board of direc- tors of the company giving specific power to him/her, or, where the articles of company confer such a power.
c) The doctrine of lifting of corporate veil is admit-
tedly an exception and can only be applied when
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 14 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
the Plaintiff establishes the well-recognized ex- ceptions i.e. where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is in- tended to be prevented or a taxing statute or a beneficent statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be in reality, part of one concern etc. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1370 and Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9582 of 2018.
d) In the instant case, there is admittedly no docu-
mentary proof to show that the Plaintiff had any transaction with Defendant no.3 or Defendant no.4. Moreover, Plaintiff has also failed to attribute specific role to Defendant no. 3 and Defendant no.4 4 with respect to the transaction in the present matter. No case of joint and several liability is, therefore, made out qua Defendant no 3 and 4.
e) In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, it is the Company and the Company alone upon whom the liability can be fixed at all. Also, as per the case set up by the Plaintiff, he was a member/ subscriber of chit fund group run by Defendant no.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 15 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1(a private limited company) for which he had de- posited Rs. 2,14,000/- through cheques, which the Defendant failed to pay. In view thereof, Plaintiff has been able to prove its case only against Defen- dant no.1 and no case is made out against Defen- dant no.3 and Defendant no. 4.
16. Further, a perusal of the plaint shows that no relief has been claimed by the Plaintiff from Defendant no.5.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion and on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2,14,500/- only against Defendant no.1.
18. Now let us come to the question of grant of interest.
(i) The power of the Court to award interest is governed by Section 34 CPC which reads as under:
Section 34 of Code of Civil procedure:
"(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum ad-
judged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, (with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum), from the date of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 16 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:
Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so ad- judged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six percent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or ad- vanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial trans- actions."
(ii) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision, shows that once a suit is filed, a Civil Court has the necessary powers u/s 34 CPC to grant pendente lite and future interest. As regards grant of pre suit interest, the same is governed by the Interest Act, 1978, as per which, it is necessary that a notice claiming interest is re-
quired to be given under the provision of Section 3 of the said Act.
(iii) In the present case, the Plaintiff has demanded interest @ 12% p.a. from the Defendant on the said advanced amount of Rs.27,885/- from 01.12.2021 to 31.12.2022. However, for the reasons best known to the Plaintiff, no documentary proof has been filed by the Plaintiff for claiming the said pre-suit interest. Hence, in my considered opinion, Plaintiff is not entitled to pre- suit interest.
(iv) The Plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 12% p.a, from the date of institution of the suit till realization. In this regard considering the recent trend of the Judicial bind- ing precedents particularly that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 17 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 230/23 Parneet Singh Vs. M/s Telic Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
case of State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 3 Arb. LR 140 (SC) and that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Home Komforts & Anr. Vs. Bhor Industries Limited & Ors. [(2011) 08 DEL CK 0131], mandating the grant of lower rates of interest, I deem it fit to grant simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum towards pendente lite and future in- terest in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendant no.1.
19. As regards the component of cost, it is well settled that grant of cost follows the event.
20. Resultantly, the above-said issues stand decided accord-
ingly and the suit of the Plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,14,500/- from Defendant no.1 is decreed alongwith pendente lite and fu- ture interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization alongwith cost.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by AAYUSHI SAXENA AAYUSHI Date:
SAXENA 2026.01.29
16:18:28
+0530
Pronounced in open court: (Aayushi Saxena)
Dated: 29.01.2026. Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Aayushi Saxena) Page no. 18 of 18 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi