Delhi District Court
Ms Indraprastha Medical Corporation ... vs B.S. Vijayagopal Others on 18 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 02
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET: NEW DELHI
CS No.210503/2016
CNR No. DLSE01-003222-2016
M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd.
Through its Authorized Representative
Office at:- Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road,
Delhi-110076.
............. Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. B.S. Vijaya Gopal (Since Deceased)
S/o Late Sh. B. Seshachalam Naidu,
R/o 10, Park Street,
Kilpauk Garden Colony,
Chennai-600010.
Through his Legal Representatives
a.) Sh. Mahesh Vijayagopal
S/o Sh. B.S. Vijayagopal
R/o D-82, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi-110011.
b). Sh. Rajesh Vijaygopal
S/o Sh. B.S. Vijayagopal
R/o D-82, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi-110011.
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 1 of 29
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18
14:34:51
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
2. Sh. B.S. Vasu (Since Deceased)
S/o Late Sh. B. Seshachalam Naidu
R/o 4729, Crater Rim Road,
Carlsbad CA 92010-5549, USA.
Through his Legal Representatives
a). Smt. Sukunda Vasu
W/o B.S. Vasu
R/o 4729, Crater Rim Road,
Carlsbad CA 92010-5549, USA.
b). Sh. Sanjay Vasu
S/o B.S. Vasu
R/o 4729, Crater Rim Road,
Carlsbad CA 92010-5549, USA.
3. Sh. Mahesh Vijyagopal
S/o B.S. Vijaygopal
R/o D-82, Anand Niketan,
New Delhi-110011.
4. Sh. Harishpal Bhasin
R/o 2325, Taylor Jean Avenue,
Atwater, CA 9501, USA.
............ Defendants
Date of institution : 12.05.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 15.10.2025
Date of pronouncement : 18.12.2025
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 2 of 29
Digitally
signed by
KULDEEP
KULDEEP NARAYAN
NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18
14:35:03
+0530
District Judge-02,
South-East, Saket
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,92,00,000/-(principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/- plus pre-suit interest of Rs.13,35,836/-) along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.
Pleadings:
2. Facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is a limited company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956; that the plaintiff company has been running a hospital by the name of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital at Delhi-Mathura Road, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi; that Sh. B.S. Krishnamurthy, who was the husband of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, had got her admitted in the said hospital of the plaintiff and during her treatment, husband of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy had died on 01.05.2011 leaving behind Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, his wife as his only heir and legal representative; that the Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy was brought to the hospital of the plaintiff on 09.03.2011 with complaints of headache, sudden onset of weakness, vomiting, loss of consciousness for two hours and as such she CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 3 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:35:12 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket was admitted in the hospital and doctors found that she was deeply unconscious with no response to deep painful stimuli with poor motor response; that thereafter necessary investigations were done and after proper consent and PAC, she was given proper treatment and on 16.04.2011, she was shifted to room; that she was given proper treatment as mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint; that on 17.09.2015, she developed DIC and was being managed accordingly; that her platelets were transfused and on 17.09.2015 at 12.40 p.m., she had cardiac arrest, could not be revived, therefore, was declared dead on 17.09.2015 at 01.10 p.m.; that Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy was issue-less at the time of her death on 17.09.2015 in the hospital of the plaintiff. She had not left either a son or a daughter or her husband and as the properties movable and immovable left by her were either belonging to her or she had inherited the same from her husband so after the death of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, defendants no.1 and 2 who are the real brothers and heirs of deceased husband B.S. Krishnamurthy, as per Section 15 (2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had inherited all the properties left by Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy; that the properties left by her did not devolve upon the heirs of her father or her mother as the same were not inherited by her either from her father or from her mother; that as such the defendants no.1 and 2 have been joined as a party to the present suit being the heirs of Smt. Sudershan CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 4Digitally of 29 signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:35:22 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Krishnamurthy; that though the defendants no.3 and 4 are not the legal heirs of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy yet they are impleaded as a party to the present suit as they were earlier appointed as guardian of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy as per the order dated 17.02.2014 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to look after her properties, bank accounts, etc. and to look after Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy in the suit filed by defendant no.3 on behalf of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where the same was registered as CS (OS) 1546 of 2011 titled as Mrs. Sudershan Krishnamurthy Vs. State & Ors.; that during the life-time of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had given directions from time to time to defendants no.3 and 4 to withdraw the amount from the bank where Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy was also having fixed deposits and to look after her and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also directed the defendants no.3 and 4 to make part payment to the plaintiff to meat the expenses of medical treatment that was to be given to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy by the hospital of the plaintiff as she was in the hospital of the plaintiff as an indoor patient w.e.f. 09.03.2011 to 17.09.2015 and she was treated by various doctors of plaintiff hospital; that during her stay in the hospital, she was subjected to various tests that were necessary for her treatment with a view to save her life and the plaintiff had been raising bills for her treatment; that the hospital of plaintiff had CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 5 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:35:31 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket raised Bill I.P. No.297922 for Rs.1,89,62,584/- for the period from 09.03.2011 to 15.04.2014 and as the software of the accounts department of hospital for preparing bill had been changed in April, 2014, so the hospital of the plaintiff had raised another bill IP No.DELIP12191 for Rs.1,39,49,268/- for the period w.e.f. 15.04.2014 to 17.09.2015 on which date Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy had died; that during the pendency of suit No. CS (OS) 1546 of 2011, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the defendants no.3 and 4 deposited money in respect of the aforesaid bills as mentioned in para no.11 of the plaint; that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also directed the hospital of plaintiff to give report regarding mental condition of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy whether she was capable of protecting her interest and whether she was able to sue herself or not and details of expenses already incurred on her treatment and also the rough estimate of expenses that was to be incurred which was submitted on 09.08.2011;
that the defendant no.3 also used to visit the hospital of plaintiff from time to time to meet Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy after she was admitted in the hospital till she died on 17.09.2015; that the plaintiff also demanded amount due to the hospital with respect to the treatment given to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy even when she was alive; that plaintiff had also sent notice dated 27.10.2014 by registered post to the defendant no.3 demanding Rs.1,06,41,537/- in respect of Bill IP CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 6 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:35:39 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket No.297922 w.e.f. 09.03.2011 to 15.04.2014 and interim Bill of IP No.DELIP12191 w.e.f. 15.04.2014 to 27.10.2014; that after receipt of notice, the defendant no.3 sent reply through e-mail dated 29.12.2014 to the hospital and stated that as liquid assets of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy had almost exhausted and as such, defendant no.3 would try to approach the Court for disposal of some fixed assets of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy so as to make the payment of the amount due to the plaintiff; that it was also mentioned in the reply that the defendant no.3 had not challenged the amount of the bill, but the defendant no.3 had not deposited the amount due as demanded in the said notice; that thereafter one application under Section 151 CPC was also filed by defendants no.3 and 4 in the aforesaid suit intimating to the Hon'ble High Court about the treatment given to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy in the hospital of the plaintiff and the said bills were running into 1.5 crores which were lying unpaid and as such permission was sought for sale of flat no.308, Ansal Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi belonging to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy; that on 26.08.2015, the Hon'ble High Court had allowed sale of the said flat by defendants no.3 and 4 and the Court Commissioner was also directed to ensure that the said flat was sold at the best price and sale proceeds were to be kept in a bank account in the name of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy; that the said property could not be sold as Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy died CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 7 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:35:49 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket on 17.09.2015; that another application was also moved before the Hon'ble High Court for modification of order dated 26.08.2015 because Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy had died on 17.09.2015 but because of her death, the Hon'ble High Court declined to modify the said order dated 26.08.2015 in as much as on the date of death of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, the order passed on 26.08.2015 had become infructuous; that the plaintiff raised a Bill IP No.297922 for Rs.1,89,62,584/- on account of treatment given to her from 09.03.2011 to 15.04.2014 out of which Rs.1,23,97,688/- were deposited from time to time and after adjustment of the same, there remained a balance of Rs.65,64,896/- out of the amount of the said bill payable to the plaintiff; that hospital had also raised Bill IP No.DELIP12191 from 15.04.2014 to 17.09.2015 for Rs.1,39,49,268/- out of which Rs.26,50,000/-had been paid by defendants no.3 and 4 on behalf of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy and as such there still remained a balance of Rs.1,12,99,268/- out of the said bill and as such the plaintiff is still entitled to recover from the defendants Rs.1,78,64,164/- being the balance amount of the aforesaid bills regarding the treatment given to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy; that despite the fact that defendant no.3 had promised vide his e-mail dated 29.12.2014 to make payment of the dues of the plaintiff by selling some of the property of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy yet no payment has been made to the plaintiff of its dues CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 8 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:00 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket till date even through Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy had died on 17.09.2015; that as such the plaintiff is now entitled to recover from the defendants Rs.1,78,64,164/- on account of treatment given to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy up to 17.09.2015 on which date she died; that the plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest from the defendants as the defendants have wrongfully withheld the aforesaid amount due to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff as such now claim in this suit Rs.13,35,836/-
on account of interest due from 18.09.2015 to 02.05.2016 on Rs.1,78,64,164/- @ 12% per annum as Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy died on 17.09.2015 hence, the present suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement taking preliminary submissions and objections that the defendant no.3 was authorized by defendants no.1, 2 and 4 by way of Power of Attorney and the written statement has been filed on behalf of all the defendants by defendant no.3; that the present suit has been filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,92,00,000/- comprising of Rs.1,78,64,164/- as principal amount and Rs.13,35,836/-- as interest upto 17.09.2015 when Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy expired and the plaintiff has also claimed 12% interest per annum on Rs.1,92,00,000/-; that the defendants admit the principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/-, but resist the claim of interest; that late Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy was admitted in the plaintiff's hospital on 09.03.2011 and remained in CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 9 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:09 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket vegetative state till she breathed her last on 17.09.2015. The defendants in preliminary objections stated that the instant suit is not maintainable because the estate of deceased Sudershan Krishnamurthy has not been devolved upon any of the defendants including defendants no.1 & 2, the Class-II heirs; that the defendants no.3 & 4, being nephew and the brother of late Sudershan Krishnamurthy, were appointed as joint guardian and they have not inherited the estate of late Sudershan Krishnamurthy; that thus, the instant suit is premature against defendants and on this ground alone, the instant suit deserves to be dismissed without entering into the merit of the claim. In reply on merits, all the allegations leveled were denied, while stating that the claim of Rs.13,35,836/-- as interest and further claim of 12% interest is wholly unjustified. So far deceased Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy was concerned, the Hon'ble High Court invoked parens patriae jurisdiction and in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, the Hon'ble High Court appointed defendant no.3 as guardian and subsequently defendant no.4 as joint guardian and permitted them to operate the bank account of late Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy. The exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction enabled the defendant no.3 to clears the bills of the plaintiff hospital till liquid assets lasted. Once liquid assets got exhausted, there was no payment to the plaintiff hospital for the reason beyond control of anybody including all the defendants as the patient was in vegetative CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 10 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:17 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket state and there was no way the property could have been sold to clear the bills. As soon as the plaintiff hospital raised the demand notice 27.10.2014, then the defendant no.3 took concrete steps of approaching the Court to sell one of the properties to clear the hospital bill and secured permission from the Hon'ble High Court on 26.08.2015. But Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy expired on 17.09.2015, and thereafter, the High Court felt that only alternative left was to apply for letter of administration. Once these crucial aspects are appreciated, it would become at once clear that the interest of Rs.13,35,836/- alongwith 12% per annum further interest is highly inequitable. The defendants reiterate that they are committed to clear the principal amount of the plaintiff hospital as and when the estate of late Sudarshan Krishnamurthy devolves upon them and if the Court during the pendency of the instant suit permits the defendants to sell once of the properties to clear the liability of the plaintiff hospital, the defendant would abide by such condition.
4. In replication, plaintiffs denied all the averments made by the defendants in written statement and reiterated and relied upon their contentions/submissions made in the plaint.
Preliminary Decree dated 22.01.2020 :
5. As the defendants in their written statement categorically CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 11 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:26 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket admitted their liability to pay Rs.1,78,64,164/- being the principal amount claimed by the plaintiff, the application filed by plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2020 and a conditional preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,78,64,164/- to be executed against defendants no.1 & 2 as and when the estate of deceased Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy devolves upon the defendants no.1 & 2, and charge was created on the estate of deceased Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy through defendants no.1 & 2.
Issues:
6. Vide order dated 07.03.2020, following issues were framed:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an interest of Rs.13,35,836/- due from 18.09.2015 to 02.05.2016 and further from the date of filing of the suit till its realization? OPP ii. Relief.
7. Since the principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/-has already been decreed and only the claim of interest remained, the testimonies of witnesses would be appreciated only in respect of claim of interest.
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 12 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:36 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket Plaintiff's Evidence:
Examination-in-chief (PW-1):-
8. Plaintiff got examined Sh. Hem Chandra Gupta, AGM (Legal) as PW-1 on 31.05.2023 who deposed by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon documents i.e., certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation Ex.PW-1/1; copy of Resolution dated 30.12.1997 Ex.PW-1/2; copy of Power of Attorney dated 30.12.1997 Ex.PW-1/3; copy of Resolution dated 18.10.2006 Ex.PW-1/4; copy of Power of Attorney dated 07.01.2008 Ex.PW-1/5; Death Summary of Smt. Sudardhan Krishnamurthy Ex.PW-1/6; copy of order dated 17.02.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court Ex.PW-1/7; copy of summarized bill IP No.297922 for Rs.1,89,62,584/- for the period 09.03.2011 to 15.11.2011 Ex.PW-1/8; copy of summarized bill IP No.DELIP12191 for Rs.1,12,99,268/- for the period 15.042014 to 17.09.2015 Ex.PW-1/9; copy of IP No.297922 for Rs.1,89,62,584/- for the period 09.03.2011 to 15.04.2011 Ex.PW-1/8A; copy of IP No.DELIP12191 for Rs.1,12,99,268/- for the period 15.04.2014 to 17.09.2015 Ex.PW-1/9A; computerized copy of 47 payment receipts in respect of part payment against Bill Ex.PW-1/8A and Ex.PW-1/9A Ex.PW-1/10 (colly); copy of notice dated 27.10.2014 with copy of summarized bills Ex.PW-1/11 (colly); original postal receipt dated 29.10.2014 Ex.PW-1/12; copy of e- mail dated 29.12.2014 (wrongly typed as 17.10.2014) Ex.PW-1/13;
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 13Digitally of 29 signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:45 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket computerized copy of order dated 24.08.2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex.PW-1/14; copy of order dated 30.03.2016 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO (OS) 631/2015 Ex.PW-1/15 and Certificate under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act issued by Sh. Mukti Ranjan Sahu, the then Senior Manager (IT) Indraprastha Apolo Hospital, Sarita Vihar, Delhi Ex.PW-1/16.
9. PW-1 deposed on the lines of the plaint of the suit. As far as issue of interest as claimed by the plaintiff is concerned, PW-1 deposed that when the present suit was filed, the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendants Rs.1,78,64,164/- on account of treatment given to Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy up to the date of her death on 17.09.2015 alongwith Rs.13,35,836/- on account of interest due from 18.09.2025 to 02.05.2016 on the said sum of Rs.1,78,64,164/-@ 12% per annum i.e., a total sum of Rs.1,92,00,000/- which the defendants failed to pay in spite of repeated demands. PW-1 further deposed that the defendants no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the suit amount as they are the heirs of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy and the properties worth more than Rs.50 crores have come in their hands after death of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy being the heirs of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy. PW-1 further deposed that the defendants no.3 and 4 are also liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff as they have been representing the estate of the deceased Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy. PW-1 further deposed that CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 14 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:36:55 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket as far as question of payment of interest due on the amount to the plaintiff is concerned, the defence setup by the defendants is not only vague but is wrong and the mere fact that the defendants are not having liquid assets of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy with them and the estate left by Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy is yet to be devolved upon them, is no ground for not awarding interest to the plaintiff. PW-1 further deposed that plaintiff has also been deprived of its just dues without any reason what so ever since a long time. PW-1 further deposed that the suit of the plaintiff is correct and the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants Rs.13,35,836/- on account of interest at the rate of 12% per annum till filing of the suit. PW-1 lastly deposed that the plaintiff is also entitled to recover future interest from the defendants at the rate of 12% from the date of suit till payment.
10. PW-1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for defendants.
During the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the deceased Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy had no Class-I legal heirs and defendants no.1 and 2 are Class-II legal heirs of deceased Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy. Further, defendant no.3 and 4, nephew and brother of Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy were appointed as joint legal guardian by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.11.2014 Ex.PW-1/7 in CS (OS) 1546/2011. PW-1 denied the suggestion that claim of Rs.13,35,836/- as interest and further claim of 12% interest was CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 15 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:37:05 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket unjustified. He further denied the suggestion that the defendants are not liable to pay interest as claimed due to the reason that the situation was beyond the control of defendants. PW-1 further admitted that no proof on record was filed to show that the defendant no.1 and 2 had got properties worth more than Rs.50 crores belonging to deceased Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy. He was also not aware if defendant no.3 had ever represented the estate of Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy.
11. Defendants got examined Sh. Mahesh Vijaygopal as DW-1, who is defendant no.3/Power of Attorney holder of LR of defendant no.1 and
2. He deposed by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. copy of GPA dated 13.07.2016 executed by Sh. B.S. Vijaygopal Mark A; copy of GPA dated 21.06.2016 executed by Sh.
B.S. Vasu Mark B; copy of GPA dated 21.06.2016 executed by Sh. Harishpaul Bhasin Mark C; copy of GPA dated 19.12.2016 executed by Sh. B.S. Vijaygopal Mark D; copy of GPA dated 02.07.2018 Ex.DW1/2; copy of GPA dated 03.07.2018 executed by Sh. Harish Paul Bhasin Ex.DW1/3; copy of GPA dated 18.10.2022 executed by Sh. Rajesh Vijaygopal Ex.DW1/4; copy of order dated 13.10.2015 of Hon'ble High Court passed in CS (OS) 1546/2011 Ex.DW1/6; copy of order dated 06.05.2016 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.12536/2016 Ex.DW-1/7; and copy of GPA dated 07.07.2018 executed by Sh. Rampal Bhasin Ex.DW-1/8.
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 16 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:37:16 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
12. DW-1 deposed that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim Rs.13,35,836/- as interest up to 17.09.2015 when Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy expired and further 12% interest per annum on Rs.1,92,00,000/- as the estate of deceased Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy has not yet devolved upon any of the defendants. He further deposed that the defendants no.1 and 2 are Class-II heirs and defendants no.3 and 4 are nephew and brother of late Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy who were appointed as joint legal guardian by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.02.2014 Ex.PW-1/7. He further deposed that the claim of Rs.13,35,836/- as interest and further claim of 12% interest is totally unjustified. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi invoked parens patriae jurisdiction and appointed him as guardian and subsequently, defendant no.4 was appointed as joint guardian and permitted them to operate the bank accounts of late Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy to clear the bills of the plaintiff till liquid assets lasted.
He further stated that once the liquid assets got exhausted, there was no payment made to the plaintiff for the reason beyond control of anybody including all the defendants as the patient was in vegetative state and there was no way the property could have been sold to clear the bills. He lastly deposed that the plaintiff is not entitled for the interest as claimed as the assets of deceased Smt. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy have yet not devolved upon any of the defendants.
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 17 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:37:27 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
13. DW-1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for plaintiff.
However, no substantial point could be extracted out in cross- examination regarding the claim of interest.
Final Arguments:
14. I heard arguments advanced by Sh. Vishal Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. K.S. Kashyap, learned counsel for the defendants and perused the material available on record.
Analysis and Findings:
15. Having heard the submissions and perused the record, my issue-
wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an interest of Rs.13,35,836/- due from 18.09.2015 to 02.05.2016 and further from the date of filing of the suit till its realization? OPP
16. The principles for grant of interest were discussed in detail by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 18.10.2001 in SLP (Civil) 2421 of 1993 titled as Central Bank of India v. Ravindera & Ors., wherein it was held that a person deprived of the CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 18 Digitally of 29 signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:37:37 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which may be called as interest, compensation or damages. Further, the general idea is that he is entitled to compensation for the deprivation.
17. The Apex Court further held that there are three divisions of interest dealt in Section 34 of CPC which popularly are called pre-suit interest, interest pendente-lite and interest post-decree or future interest.
It was held in categorical terms that interest for the period anterior to institution of suit is not a matter of procedure and interest pendente-lite is not a matter of substantive law.(emphasis supplied). The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are extracted as under:-
"Pre-suit interest is referable to substantive law and can be sub-divided into two sub- heads; (i) where there is a stipulation for the payment of interest at a fixed rate; and
(ii) where there is no such stipulation. If there is a stipulation for the rate of interest, the Court must allow that rate upto the date of the suit subject to three exceptions; (i) any provision of law applicable to money lending transactions, or usury laws or any CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 19 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:37:46 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket other debt law governing the parties and having an overriding effect on any stipulation for payment of interest voluntarily entered into between the parties; (ii) if the rate is penal, the Court must award at such rate as it deems reasonable; (iii) even if the rate is not penal the Court may reduce it if the interest is excessive and the transaction was substantially unfair. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest the plaintiff is not entitled to interest except on proof of mercantile usage, statutory right to interest, or an implied agreement."
18. The Apex Court further laid down that interest from the date of suit to date of decree is in the discretion of the Court. Further, interest from the date of decree to the date of payment or any other earlier date appointed by the Court is again in the discretion of the Court - to award or not to award as also the rate at which to award.
19. It is, therefore, clear that pre-suit interest i.e., the interest before institution of the suit is a matter of substantive law whereas interest CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 20 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:37:55 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket pendente-lite and future interest is a matter of procedure, as per the discretion of the Court.
20. By judgment dated 07.10.2005 in M/s. Batliboi & Company Ltd. v. M/s. Beama Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Hon'ble Madras High Court reiterated the aforementioned principles relating to payment of interest and laid-down that so far as pendente-lite and future interest are concerned, Section 34 of CPC is applicable, however, payment of pre- suit interest depends upon the substantive law i.e. Section 3 & 4 of the Interest Act, 1978 which are reproduced as under:-
3. Power of court to allow interest.- (1) In any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the following period, that is to say,-
(a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings;
(b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt, then, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 21 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:38:04 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket claimed, to the date of institution of the proceedings:
Provided that where the amount of the debt or damages has been repaid before the institution of the proceedings, interest shall not be allowed under this section for the period after such repayment.
(2) Where, in any such proceedings as are mentioned in sub-section (1),-
(a) judgment, order or award is given for a sum which, apart from interest on damages, exceeds four thousand rupees, and
(b) the sum represents or includes damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person or in respect of a person's death, then, the power conferred by that sub-section shall be exercised so as to include in that sum interest on those damages or on such part of them as the court considers appropriate for the whole or part of the period from the date mentioned in the notice to the date of institution of the proceedings, unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons why no interest should be given in respect of those damages.
(3) Nothing in this section,-
(a) shall apply in relation to-
(i) any debt or damages upon which interest is payable as of right, by virtue of any agreement; or
(ii) any debt or damages upon which payment of interest is barred, by virtue of an express agreement;
(b) shall affect-
(i) the compensation recoverable for the dishonour CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 22Digitally of 29 signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:38:12 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket of a bill of exchange, promissory note or cheque, as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881); or
(ii) the provisions of Rule 2 of Order II of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908);
(c) shall empower the court to award interest upon interest.
4. Interest payable under certain enactments.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, interest shall be payable in all cases in which it is payable by virtue of any enactment or other rule of law or usage having the force of law.
(2) Notwithstanding as aforesaid, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the court shall, in each of the following cases, allow interest from the date specified below to the date of institution of the proceedings at such rate as the court may consider reasonable, unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons why interest should not be allowed, namely:-
(a) where money or other property has been deposited as security for the performance of an obligation imposed by law or contract, from the date of the deposit;
(b) where the obligation to pay money or restore any property arises by virtue of a fiduciary relationship, from the date of the cause of action;
(c) where money or other property is obtained or retained by fraud, from the date of the cause of CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 23 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:38:23 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket action;
(d) where the claim is for dower or maintenance, from the date of the cause of action.
21. It was further laid down that a combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 3 & 4 of the said Act make it clear that, (1) interest is payable on a pre-suit claim if there is any statutory enactment to that effect (like provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act or the Land Acquisition Act, etc.), (2) interest is payable under other rule of law, (3) interest is payable by virtue of any usage having the force of law, (4) interest is payable as of right by virtue of any agreement as contemplated under Section 3 (3) (a) of the said Act which can be express agreement or even implied agreement, (5) interest is payable if the claim relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, and (6) interest is payable from the date of any written notice given by person entitled to such claim.
22. Applying the afore-discussed propositions of law to the facts of the present suit, it is evident that as far as the claim of plaintiff for pre-
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 24 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:38:32 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket suit interest of Rs.13,35,836/- is concerned, there is no written instrument under which the claim was payable at a certain time. The plaintiff has also not pleaded if there was any agreement with the defendants regarding payment of interest or there is any usage having the force of law regarding payment of interest.
23. Thus, in the absence of any agreement, any written instrument or usage having the force of law regarding payment of interest, the claim of the plaintiff for pre-suit interest can only be maintainable if any written notice to that effect was issued.
24. A perusal of the plaint and testimony of PW-1 would reveal that it has been merely averred that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest as the defendants wrongfully withheld the amount. It is also clear from the record that no written notice was ever issued by the plaintiff claiming interest at any point of time. The Letter dated 27.10.2014 Ex.PW-1/11 does not reflect any claim about the interest.
25. Therefore, in the absence of any written notice to claim interest, in view of above-mentioned legal propositions, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim pre-suit interest of Rs.13,35,836/- from the defendants.
26. Next, plaintiff has also claimed pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on the suit amount of Rs.1,92,00,000/- which CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 25 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN Date:
NARAYAN 2025.12.18 14:38:40 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket consists of Rs.1,78,64,164/- as the principal amount and Rs.13,35,836/- on account of interest. It is worthy to note that the principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/- has already been decreed in favour of the plaintiff on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2020.
27. As discussed above, plaintiff is not entitled to claim pre-suit interest of Rs.13,35,836/-. Now, it is to be seen whether pendente-lite interest and future interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/- can be awarded to the plaintiff or not.
28. Admittedly, the hospital bills raised by the plaintiff before the death of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy were regularly paid by the defendants. Defendant no.1 and 2 are Class-II heirs and defendant no.3 and 4 were appointed as joint guardian by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order Ex.PW-1/7. After the death of Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy, joint guardianship of defendant no.3 and 4 has been automatically terminated.
29. It is evident that the bills of the plaintiff hospital were cleared from liquid assets of late Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy during her lifetime, which were in the form of her bank balance, fixed deposits and post office savings. There is no dispute in this regard.
CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 26 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:38:48 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket
30. After the liquid assets got exhausted, defendant no.3 and 4 jointly moved an application for sale of one of the immovable properties of late Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy to enable them to clear the dues of the plaintiff. Vide order dated 26.08.2015 Ex.PW-1/14 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the aforesaid application was allowed for sale of flat no.308, Ansal Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi under the supervision of Court Commissioner. However, in the meanwhile, Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy passed away on 17.09.2015 and accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2015 Ex.PW-1/14 became infructuous vide order dated 13.10.2015. The aforesaid order dated 13.10.2015 was challenged by defendant no.3/DW-1 before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing F.A.O. (OS) No.631 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2016 Ex.PW-1/15, making it clear that the LRs inheriting the estate of late Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy would be liable to liquidate the estate to clear the dues. Further, defendant no.3/DW-1 also challenged the said order dated 30.03.2016 Ex.PW-1/15 by preferring SLP (Civil) No.12536 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was withdrawn vide order dated 06.05.2016 Ex.DW-1/7.
31. During cross-examination, PW-1 also admitted all the aforementioned facts. He was also not aware if any property of deceased Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy has devolved upon any of the CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 27 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:38:57 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket defendants. PW-1 further admitted that the defendants have already filed a petition under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act vide PC No.8/2016 which is pending in the Court concerned at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. PW-1 admittedly has not filed any proof on record to show that defendants no.1 and 2 have got property worth more than Rs.50 crores belonging to deceased Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy.
32. In the afore discussed facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, clear that the defendants tried their level best to clear the dues of plaintiff, but despite their best efforts, the properties of late Smt. Sudershan Krishnamurthy could not be sold to clear the dues of the plaintiff. To date, the defendants are not capable to sell the properties devolved upon them without obtaining Succession Certificate/Letter of Administration. A petition under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act vide PC No.8/2016 has already been filed in this regard which is pending in the Court concerned at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. It is, therefore, evident that there was no delay on the part of the defendants to deprive the plaintiff from its legal dues which occurred due to the reasons beyond their control. All the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, do not warrant award of any interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/-, be it pendente-lite or future interest. The fact situation would have been different had the properties come into the hands of the defendants at their disposal and CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 28 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:39:07 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket they had intentionally delayed the clearance of the dues of the plaintiff hospital which is not so in the present case.
33. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim pendente-lite interest and future interest from the defendants on principal amount of Rs.1,78,64,164/-. The issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Relief:
34. In view of findings on issue no.1, plaintiff is neither entitled to claim pre-suit interest of Rs.13,35,836/- nor pendente-lite or future interest from the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed qua the claim of interest.
35. Decree-Sheet be drawn.
36. File be consigned to Records after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN Pronounced in the Open Court on NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 this 18th day of December, 2025 14:39:16 +0530 (Kuldeep Narayan) District Judge - 02, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi/sk CS DJ No.210503/2016 M/s. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. & B.S. Vijayagopal (Deied) Through LRs & Ors. Page No. 29 of 29 Digitally signed by KULDEEP KULDEEP NARAYAN NARAYAN Date:
2025.12.18 14:39:23 +0530 District Judge-02, South-East, Saket