Delhi District Court
Capital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd vs Vikram Sharma on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010010892023
CS (COMM.) No. 147/2023
CNR No. DLCT010010892023
( As per amended memo of parties)
M/s Capital Hind Finance Pvt. Ltd
Reg. Off At 82, Ground Floor
Khanna Market, Tis Hazari
Delhi -110054
through its AR Ms. Jyoti Khari ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Vikram Sharma
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
2. Ms. Shaveta Sharma
w/o Sh. Vikram Sharma
(claim against defendant no.2 given up by the plaintiff vide order dated
03.10.2024)
Both resident of : ( OLD Address)
r/o U -5102, Kingsbury
TDI City, Kundli
Sonepat,
Haryana -131023
(New Address as per memo of parties filed alongwith written statement)
r/o C-1 Flat no.306, Tulip Grand,
Sector 35, Near O.P Jindal University,
Digitally
signed by
Akbarpur Barota (62), Akabarpur Barota
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date: Sonipat, Haryana-131103 ......Defendants
GOEL 2026.01.27
12:44:15
+0530
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 1 of 29 )
Date of filing of suit : 23.01.2023
Date of Argument : 16.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present suit for recovery of Rs.13,49,466/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Six only) filed by the plaintiff M/s Capital Hind Finance Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as "plaintiff company") against the defendants.
2. Pertinent to mention that on 3.10.2024, submissions were made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff is not pressing the present claim against defendant no.2; statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in this regard was recorded separately; Thus, the present claim remains against defendant no.1 Vikram Sharma only ( herein after refer to as ' the defendant') Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27
12:44:22
+0530
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Brief facts of the case as gleaned from the plaint are that:-
(a) The plaintiff company is a Private Ltd.
Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and is in the business of finance; Ms Jyoti Khari, Manager of the plaintiff M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 2 of 29 ) company is duly authorised to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff company.
(b) The defendant was in dire need of money to set up and expand his business; he made the request to the plaintiff company for financial assistance; defendant claimed to be the proprietor of the firm namely "JV Auto"; the plaintiff company extended the loan to the defendant in his personal accounts as well as in the account of the said firm of defendant details of which are as under:-
i. Rs.72,000/- on 04.02.2020 in the account of defendant no. 1 Vikram Sharma.
ii. Rs.7,00,000/- on 04.02.2020 in the account of JV Auto.
iii. Rs.3,36,000/- on 30.10.2020 in the account of defendant no. 1 Vikram Sharma iv. Rs. 1,98,000/- on 22.12.2020 in the account of defendant no. 1 Vikram Sharma.
(c) It was agreed that the defendant shall pay the loan amount alongwith interest.
(d) The defendant showed his inability in repayment of the scheduled loan and requested to settle the same and to reschedule the loan amount.
(e) On 28.06.2021, on the request being made on behalf of the defendant, the aforesaid loans were settled at Rs.10,00,000/; defendant executed fresh loan agreement alongwith pro-note and it was agreed by them that the entire settlement amount shall be paid in 18 installments of Rs.77,777.77/- each, commencing from 30.07.2021.
(f) It is the case of the plaintiff company that the Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2026.01.27 defendant failed to adhere to the terms and GOEL 12:44:27 +0530 conditions of the agreement; a legal notice dated 30.11.2021 was issued to the defendant.
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 3 of 29 )
(g) The defendant issued a cheque bearing no.
664384 dated 01.12.2021 in the sum of Rs.13,49,466/- in discharge of his legal liabilities; on presentation, the said cheque was returned back for the reasons "insufficient funds"; another legal notice dated 16.12.2021, was sent to the defendant but despite service of the legal notice, no amount was paid by the defendant. Hence the present case was filed.
4. In terms of Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, plaintiff company appears to have gone for pre-institution mediation and a non-starter report dated 12.08.2022 was issued by the Central District Legal Services Authority.
5. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant.
6. Here it is pertinent to mention that initially, the defendant could not be served through ordinary process and he could be served only through publication in the newspaper namely "Nav Bharat Times" dated 29.01.2024 but the defendant failed to appear before the court despite the service, therefore, the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.07.2024.
7. Exparte evidence was led by the plaintiff Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Date:
company and the case reached at the stage of exparte GOEL 2026.01.27 12:44:32 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 4 of 29 ) final arguments.
8. As stated herein above, initially the present suit has been filed against two defendants i.e Vikram Sharma (D-1) and Shaveta Sharma (D-2). On 03.10.2024, submissions were made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company that the plaintiff company is not pressing the present claim against defendant no.2; statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company in this regard was recorded separately; exparte final arguments were heard and finally vide exparte judgement dated 03.10.2024, the present suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant no.1 Vikram Sharma only and file was directed to be consigned to record room as per rules.
9. Thereafter, on 21.1.2025, two applications i.e one under Order IX Rule 13 r/w section 151 CPC and an another under section 5 of the Limitation Act, moved on behalf of the applicant/ defendant were received by way of assignment through e-mode; notices of the said applications were directed to be given to the non-applicant/plaintiff company ; non-
Digitally signedRAJESH by RAJESH applicant/plaintiff company put appearance and filed KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2026.01.27 GOEL 12:44:38 +0530 the reply to the aforesaid applications; vide order M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 5 of 29 ) dated 1.7.2025, both the aforesaid applications were disposed off whereby the exparte judgement and decree dated 03.10.2024 was set aside and defendant was directed to file the written statement.
Filling of Written Statement:
10. In the written statement defendant has taken the following objections:
i. The suit of the plaintiff company is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff company has sought double remedy for the same alleged cause of action as a complaint u/s 138 of N.I Act is already pending adjudication before the Ld. JMFC, Central.
ii. The plaintiff company has deliberately suppressed the material fact that the cheque in question was issued merely as a security instrument and not in discharge of any outstanding liability.
iii. The defendant has already made the alleged outstanding amount of Rs 13,49,466/-; a cumulative payment of Rs 14,23,895/- which is exceeding the cheque amount has already been made and this material fact has been concealed by the plaintiff company.
iv. All other allegations made in the plaint have been denied and it is requested that the present suit being devoid of merits may kindly be dismissed with cost.
11. The plaintiff company filed the replication denying the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR KUMAR GOEL
Date: 2026.01.27
GOEL 12:44:42 +0530
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 6 of 29 )
12. The record would indicate that both the parties have filed the affidavits of admission and denial of the documents.
Settlement of issues and Fixing the Schedule for Second Case Management Hearing.
13. Vide order dated 25.08.2025 from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by this Court and the schedule for Second Case Management Hearing was fixed :-
1. Whether the defendants have already discharged the liability by making the outstanding payments to the plaintiff, as claimed in Para 12,13 and 14 of the written statement? (OPD)
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs 13,49,466/-, as prayed for ? (OPP)
3. In case the issue no.2 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
4. Relief.
Evidence led by the parties:
14. In support of its case, the plaintiff company has examined its AR Ms. Archana as PW1 and one Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Ashish Mehta, Assistant Ahlmad, from the court of GOEL Date:
2026.01.27 12:44:47 +0530 Ld. JMFC, Central as PW2.
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 7 of 29 )
15. PW1 Archana has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in her evidence filed by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. PW1 has relied upon the documents i.e Certificate of incorporation and certificate of registration of plaintiff ExPW1/A (colly), Resolution dated 24.4.2024 ExPW1/B, statement of personal loan ExPW1/C(colly), original loan agreement dated 28.06.2021 ExPW1/E, Promissory Note and receipts ExPW1/F(colly), Photocopy of ID Card of the defendant Mark X1 (colly), Copy of Cheque, bank memo and copy of legal notice dated 16.12.2021 Mark X2 (colly), Non-starter report dated 12.8.2022 ExPW1/G.
16. PW1 Archana was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
17. PW2 Ashish Mehta, assistant ahlmad, is a summoned witness from the court of Ld. JMFC-01, Digital Court, Central who brought the summoned record pertaining to case filed u/s 138 of N.I Act bearing no. 1780/2022 titled as "M/S Captial Hind Finanace Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Sharma" having Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH original cheque bearing no. 664384 dated 1.12.2021 KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:44:52 +0530 in the sum of Rs 13,49,466/-, returning memo dated M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 8 of 29 ) 3.12.2021 and legal notice dated 16.12.2021 ExPW2/A (colly).
18. PW2 was not cross examined by the defendant despite the opportunity being given.
19. Vide order dated 11.09.2025, plaintiff evidence was closed.
20. Defendant has examined himself as DW1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A and deposed on the lines of stand taken in the written statement filed by the defendant. He has relied upon the documents i.e copies of the bank statements ExDW1/1, copies of receipts Mark DW1/2.
21. DW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company.
22. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed.
Arguments made by the Ld. Counsels:
23. Lde. Counsel for the plaintiff company has made the following submissions:-
(a) In the present case, the defendant has not taken any RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL objection to having availed the loan facilities and KUMAR Date:
2026.01.27 execution of the agreement, pronote etc. GOEL 12:44:57 +0530
(b) The plaintiff's witnesses PW1 Ms Archana and PW2 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 9 of 29 ) Ashish Mehta proved the aforesaid documents and consequently have proved the case of the plaintiff company; the plaintiff company has placed on record the statement/summary regarding the multiple loans ExPW1/C (colly), loan taken by the defendant.
(c) By referring to the cross examination of DW1 Vikram Sharma, it was stated that the defendant has admitted all the loan transactions and detail thereof which is available in the documents ExDW1/X (colly) and ExDW1/X1 (colly).
(d) Since, the defendant was not in a position to repay the loan alongwith interest, therefore, on 28.1.2021, after discussion and interactions and after giving deductions all loan amounts were settled with the defendant at Rs 10,00,000/- for which the defendant executed loan agreement dated 28.06.2021 ExPW1/E (colly), promissory note and receipt ExPW1/F (colly) which have not been denied by the defendant; consequently, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 664384 dated 1.12.2021 in the sum of Rs 13,49,466/- ExPW2/A(colly) but when it was presented for encashment, the same was received back dishonored for the reasons "insufficient funds" ; the issuance of cheque itself is sufficient in order to prove the case of the plaintiff company that an amount of Rs 13,49,466/- is due and outstanding against the defendant; therefore the plaintiff company is entitled for the decree, as prayed for.
24. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has made following submissions:-
a) No evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff company indicating that an amount of Rs 13,49,466/- is due and outstanding against the Digitally defendant, therefore, there is no cause of action in signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL favour of the plaintiff company and against the KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:45:01 defendant.
+0530
b) The plaintiff company has concealed and suppressed M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 10 of 29 ) the material facts regarding the receipts and bank transactions vide which the payments were made to the plaintiff company on behalf of the defendant.
c) During the cross examination, PW1 Ms. Archana has admitted having issued the cash receipts against the payments made by the defendant; the said receipts have been placed on record; once the plaintiff company has admitted the receipts of the payment, the plaintiff company cannot claim that any amount is still due and outstanding against the defendant.
d) The cheque in question had been issued as a security and it was never intended to be used for discharging any particular loan; the said cheque had been given as a collateral security.
e) There is nothing on record indicating that the plaintiff company has made any demand on the basis of the aforesaid cheque.
f) The plaintiff company has already initiated the proceedings against the defendant u/s 138 of N.I Act for dishonor of the cheque and despite that has filed the present suit which is not permissible as it has created a vexatious multiplicity of litigation and forum shopping.
g) The plaintiff company has failed to explain clearly as to how much amount was paid by the defendant and how much amount is pending and how the plaintiff company has reached at the suit amount of Rs 13,49,466/-; therefore, the suit of the plaintiff company is liable to be dismissd.
25. I have perused the records and heard the Ld counsels of both the parties.
Discussion and Analysis
26. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Digitally Issue no.1 signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.27 12:45:06 Whether the defendants have already discharged +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 11 of 29 ) the liability by making the outstanding payments to the plaintiff, as claimed in Para 12,13 and 14 of the written statement? (OPD) Issue no.2 Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs 13,49,466/-, as prayed for ? (OPP)
27. Both these issues are interconnected, therefore, the same are being decided together.
28. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to pen down the admitted facts so that the disputed facts can be decided conveniently. For this, I would be referring to the pleadings of the parties, documents on record and the evidence led by the parties particularly the cross examination of the witnesses.
29. In the plaint, it is averred that the plaintiff company had given the loans to the defendant in the sum of Rs 72,000/- and Rs 7,00,000/- on 04.2.2020, in the sum of Rs 3,36,000/- on 30.10.2020 and Rs 1,98,000/- on 22.12.2020. It is further averred that since the defendant showed his inability to repay the said loan, therefore on 28.06.2021, the defendant settled the loan amount at Rs 10,00,000/- and executed fresh loan agreement whereby the defendant Digitally agreed to make the payment in 18 installments of Rs signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27
12:45:11
+0530 77777.77/- each starting from 30.07.2021 but the
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 12 of 29 ) defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement; on receipt of the legal notice, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 664384 dated 01.12.2021.
30. While replying the aforesaid averments, the stand of the defendant is that the said cheque in question had been issued as a security and not in discharge of any existing liability; defendant has already made a total payment of Rs 14,23,895/- i.e a payment of Rs 9,44,895/- through banking channel and a payment of Rs 4,79,000/- in cash. The details of the alleged payments made by the defendant have been mentioned in para no.13 and 14 of the written statement.
31. In order to prove their respective contentions, the plaintiff company has examined its AR Archana as PW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/1 and the defendant has examined himself as DW1 who has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A. A perusal of the evidence filed by both the parties by way of affidavits ExPW1/1 and ExDW1/A, would reveal that the same are Digitally signed by nothing but reproduction of the stand as stated by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 them in their respective pleadings, which has already 12:45:15 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 13 of 29 ) been noted, therefore, I would be referring to that part of their cross examination which is relevant to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and not otherwise.
32. During the cross examination PW1 Archana, replied that at the time when the documents pertaining to the loan were executed, she was working with the plaintiff company and all the documents have been executed in her presence; plaintiff company had extended the multiple loans to the defendant but she does not remember the exact total amount; when the account was settled, the amount of Rs 13,49,000/- was due against the defendant for which the defendant had issued the cheque; the plaintiff company had not taken any post dated cheque in respect of the installment of Rs 77777.77/-; the cheque dated 1.12.2021 in the sum of Rs 13,49,466/- was not a blank cheque at the time of its issuance and the details were duly filled in. PW1 has denied that during the period from 20.7.2020 to 4.3.2021, the plaintiff company had received an amount of Rs 9,44,895/- from the defendant. She has Digitally RAJESH signed by RAJESH KUMAR also denied that till 6.7.2021, plaintiff company had KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.27 received an amount of Rs.4,79,000/ against duly 12:45:22 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 14 of 29 ) issued cash receipts but admitted that as and when the defendant made the cash payment, the receipt was duly issued to the defendant and the defendant has made certain cash payment also against which the plaintiff company had issued the receipts.
33. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the examination of PW1 Archana, the cheque , the returning memo and legal notice dated 06.12.2021 were given Mark X2 (colly). The plaintiff company had summoned the requisite file and examined Ashish Mehta as PW2 who produced the judicial record pertaining to the case filed u/s 138 of N.I Act filed by the plaintiff company. The said judicial record had the original cheque bearing no. 664384 dated 01.12.2021 in the sum of Rs 13,49,466/-, returning memo dated 03.12.2021 and legal notice dated 16.12.2021. PW2 was not cross examined by the defendant and the defendant has not disputed the aforesaid record and accordingly the aforesaid cheque, returning memo and the legal notice were given ExPW2/A (colly).
34. This takes me to the testimony of DW1 Vikram RAJESH Digitally signed Sharma. DW1 Vikram Sharma, during his cross by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2026.01.27 examination admitted that during the year 2020-21, GOEL 12:45:27 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 15 of 29 ) he had taken multiple loans from the plaintiff company but stated that whatever loan was taken by him, he has already repaid the same. He admitted that in the month of February,2020, the plaintiff company had extended the loan in the sum of Rs 7,72,000/-;
regarding crediting the amount of Rs 3,36,000/- in his account, the defendant replied that it would be available in the statement of account. A similar answer was given in respect of another amount of Rs 1,98,000/- which was credited to the account of the defendant by the plaintiff company. DW1 Vikram Sharma has denied having received any loan in the sum of Rs 2,46,250/- in the month of February,2021. DW1 has further admitted summary of loan as detailed in ExDW1/ X(colly) and ExDW1/X1 (colly).
35. In the written statement, the defendant has referred to certain terms i.e "WDL", " TFR" and "EDL". During his cross examination, DW1 was asked as to what he meant by the said terms to which he replied that he does not know what does it means. When, DW1 was specifically asked about the alleged Digitally payment having been made by the defendant in the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 sum of Rs 42,000/- on 07.12.2023, as claimed in para 12:45:31 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 16 of 29 ) no.14 of the written statement, DW1 replied that he does not remember the same. DW1 during his cross examination admitted of having executed the loan cum hypothecation agreement ExPW1/E, Promissory note and receipt ExPW1/F (colly) and his signatures thereon but regarding signatures of his wife, DW1 replied that he does not remember the signature of his wife on the said documents.
36. If the testimony of PW1 Archana and DW1 Vikram Sharma is put to close scrutiny, in the background of the admitted documents i.e agreement ExPW1/E, Promissory note and receipts ExPW1/F(colly), it would not be a difficult conclusion that the defendant has taken the loan from the plaintiff company on various dates which was duly utilised by him and the same is being reflected in the Summary details ExDW1/X (colly) and ExDW1/X1(colly). Thus, the defendant has failed to establish that he has already returned the loan amount, as claimed by him.
37. Regarding issuance of cheque ExPW2/A (colly), DW1 stated that plaintiff company was Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:45:36 +0530 having few blank cheques with them which had been M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 17 of 29 ) misused by the plaintiff company and the defendant did not make any payment through said cheque. From the aforesaid factual matrix, following undisputed facts have surfaced:-
(a) The plaintiff company had extended the loan in the sum of Rs 72,000/- and Rs 7,00,000/-
on 4.2.2020, in the sum of Rs 3,6,000/- on 30.10.2020 and Rs 1,98,000/- on 22.12.2020.
(b) Vide loan agreement dated 28.6.2021 ExPW1/E, the defendant has agreed to repay the said loan amount in 18 installments of Rs 777777.77/- starting from 30.7.2021.
(c) The defendant has executed the promissory note and receipt ExPW1/F( colly).
(d) The defendant had issued the cheque bearing no.664384 dated 01.12.2021 in the sum of Rs 13,49,466/- ExPW2/A (colly).
38. Having noted the aforesaid facts, now it is to be seen whether the aforesaid loan was duly repaid by the defendant, as claimed or not ? Once the defendant has admitted of having received the loan and execution of the loan agreement and also issuance of the cheque, it was the obligation of the defendant to discharge the burden placed on him that he has already made a total payment of Rs 14,23,895/- i.e a payment of Rs 9,44,895/- through banking channel Digitally and a payment of Rs 4,79,000/- in cash.
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27
12:45:42
+0530
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 18 of 29 )
39. DW1 Vikram Sharma is relying upon the receipts placed at page no.121 and 130 of the paper book but these are the photocopies only and the same were referred to as Mark DW1/2 (colly), therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence and the defendant cannot take any benefit from these photocopies.
40. Further, DW1 admitted the summary of loan account ExDW1/X (colly) and ExDW1/X1 (colly) as relied upon by the plaintiff company; DW1 stated that the aforesaid two documents are correct and so as the entries but the only objection was that he has already made the payment through RTGS and in cash which he has miserably failed to prove. Although, it is being claimed by the defendant that he had made excess payment but during his cross examination, he stated that he does not know the exact amount of the excess payment. He even could not explain what he meant by the term 'WDL' 'TFR' and 'EDL'.
41. From the very beginning, the stand of the defendant was that he has already made the payments Digitally signed by but nothing has been brought on record that the RAJESH RAJESH account was settled by the defendant. As noted herein KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27
12:45:46
+0530
above the cash receipts MarkDW1/2, as relied upon M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 19 of 29 ) the defendant would not help the defendant for the reasons that being the photocopies having been given only the Mark.
42. In the written statement in para no.13 and 14, the defendant has referred to certain payments being made but could not establish the same and no record has been placed on record by him whereas the plaintiff company by way of the summary details ExDW1/X (colly) and ExDW1/X1 (colly) which indicates that few payments made through cheque got dishonored for which initially a credit had been given to the defendant but after dishonor of the cheque, the same amount was debited to the accounts of the defendant.
43. Another contention of the defendant is that the cheque ExPW2/A(colly) had been issued as a security. In the background of the proved and admitted fact that the defendant had taken the loan from the plaintiff company, now it is to be seen whether the aforesaid contention of the defendant would meet the conclusion, as desired by the Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR defendant.
KUMAR GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.01.27 12:45:51 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 20 of 29 )
44. PW1 Archana during her cross examination replied that the plaintiff company had given multiple loans to the defendant no.1; regarding execution of the promissory note and receipt ExPW1/F (colly) in the sum of Rs 10,00,000/- but issuance of cheque in the sum of Rs 13,49,466/-, she stated that an amount of Rs 13,49,466/- was settled after settlement of account and the cheque was issued; whatever the money was returned by the defendant, the same is a matter of record; she stated that the plaintiff company had not taken the post dated cheques in respect of the installments of Rs 77,777.77/-. When PW1 was shown the cheque dated 1.12.2021 ExPW2/A ( Mark X-2(Colly)), she stated that at the time when the cheque was issued, it was not blank and it was duly filled in and as and when the payment was received by the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company used to issue the receipts. PW1 has denied that the defendant had made payment in cash to the extent of Rs 4,79,000/-.
45. During the cross examination, PW1 Archana replied that the cheque ExPW2/A (colly) (Mark Digitally signed by RAJESH X-2) was issued by the defendant and it was duly RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR filled in. Not even a suggestion was put to the PW1 GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27
12:45:56
+0530
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 21 of 29 ) that at the time when the cheque had been issued, it was blank. Further during the cross examination DW1 Vikram Sharma although stated that the plaintiff company was having a few blank cheques with them but could not explain for what purpose and against which loan, the aforesaid cheque had been issued? He even denied of having any knowledge of dishonoring of the cheque whereas the fact is that the aforesaid cheque was dishonored for the reasons 'insufficient fund'
46. This all shows that the defence, as taken by the defendant that the cheque in question had been issued as a security, is a sham defence and has been taken without any basis just to avoid the legal liability. Further, the defendant has not explained as to why the defendant never asked the plaintiff company to return the said cheque. This all supports the story of the plaintiff company that the cheque in question had been issued by the defendant in discharge of his legal liability.
RAJESH47. Here I may mention that in a significant KUMAR GOEL departure from the general rule applicable to Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL contracts, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Date: 2026.01.27 12:46:02 +0530 Act provides certain presumptions to be raised. This M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 22 of 29 ) section lays down some special rules of evidence relating to presumptions. The reason for these presumptions is that, negotiable instruments pass from hand to hand on endorsement and it would make trading very difficult and negotiability of the instrument impossible, unless certain presumptions are made. The presumption, therefore, is a matter of principle to facilitate negotiability as well as trade. Section 118 of the Act provides presumptions to be raised until the contrary is proved (i) as to consideration, (ii) as to date of instrument, (iii) as to time of acceptance, (iv) as to time of transfer, (v) as to order of indorsements, (vi) as to appropriate stamp, and (vii) as to holder being a holder in due course.
48. It goes without saying that the presumptions are devices by use of which the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the then Evidence Act or Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023, all presumptions must come under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) "may presume" (rebuttable), Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH (2) "shall presume" (rebuttable), and (3) "conclusive KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:46:06 +0530 presumptions" (irrebuttable). The term "presumption"
M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 23 of 29 ) is used to designate an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact, conveniently called the "presumed fact" drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption literally means "taking as true without examination or proof".
49. Here I may also note the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Official Receiver v. Abdul Shakoor, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 172, which are as under:-
"16. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act authorises the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Under the third illustration of Section 114 the Court may presume that a bill of exchange accepted or endorsed was accepted for good consideration. But the section provides, that the Court shall also have regard to other material facts in considering whether the maxim does or does not apply in the particular case before it, it is therefore open to the Court to consider in its proper setting, the fact that the drawer of a bill of exchange was a man of business, and the acceptor was a young and ignorant person completely under the former's influence. This is one illustrative fact which the Court may consider in raising the presumption. There may Digitally signed be other circumstances which may also justify the RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Court in declining to raise the presumption. Mr Pathak KUMAR 2026.01.27 Date:
for the respondents urged that the Indian Evidence Act GOEL 12:46:12 +0530 M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 24 of 29 ) was enacted in 1872 and the Negotiable Instruments Act having been enacted in 1881, and as the two provisions conflict or overlap, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must supersede Section 114 of the Evidence Act. We are unable to accept that contention. Undoubtedly Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a general provision which enables the Court to presume, though not obliged to do so, that a bill of exchange or a promissory note was founded on a good consideration. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, however, enacts a special rule of evidence which operates between parties to the instrument or persons claiming under them in a suit or proceeding relating to the bill of exchange and does not affect the rule contained in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, in cases not falling within Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
50. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P. Balasubramanian"
(2021) 5 SCC 283, examines the scope and ambit of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, to hold:
"14. Once the 2nd appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court fell in error when it called upon the respondent complainant to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of law.
xx xx xx
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL 17. Even if we take the arguments raised by the KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:46:16 appellants at face value that only a blank cheque +0530 and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 25 of 29 ) obliterated. It is useful to cite "Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar", where this court held that: "Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
18. Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship between the parties, we are of the opinion that the defence raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence or meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability'. In the absence of any other relevant material, it appears to us that the High Court did not err in discarding the appellants' defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of the NIA."
51. In a recent case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once execution of cheque is admitted, presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arise. It was further observed as under:-
"15. In the present case, the cheque in question has admittedly been signed by respondent No. 1- accused. This court is of the view that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under section 118 Digitally signed by of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the cheque in RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL question was drawn for consideration and the GOEL Date:
2026.01.27 12:46:20 presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable +0530 Instruments Act, that the holder of the cheque received M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 26 of 29 ) the said cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arise against the accused. It is pertinent to mention that observations to the contrary by a two-judge Bench in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde; 2008 SCC OnLine SC 106.] have been set aside by a three-judge Bench in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan; 2010 SCC OnLine SC 583.
16. This court is further of the view that by creating this presumption, the law reinforces the reliability of cheques as a mode of payment in commercial transactions. 17. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the M/s Phool Chand Bhagat Singh Vs Vikas Aggarwal Date of judgment 14.01.2026 (Page 27 of 30 ) accused/drawer of the cheque (see : Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138) .
18. The judgment of this court in APS Forex Services P. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers [(2020) 12 SCC 724; (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 505; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 193.] relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 1- accused only says that the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and when the same is rebutted, the onus would shift back to the complainant to prove his financial capacity, more particularly, when it is a case of giving loan by cash. This judgment nowhere states, as was sought to be contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1-
accused, that in cases of dishonour of cheques, in lieu of cash loans, the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise. Approach of some courts below to not give effect to the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is contrary to mandate of Parliament"
52. Reverting back to the case at hand, the RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH defendant has failed to rebut the presumption KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:46:25 +0530 available in favour of the plaintiff company that the M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 27 of 29 ) cheque in question ExPW2/A (Colly) had been issued in discharge of the legal liability. The defendant could not explain or establish that the said cheque had been issued as a security. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, as narrated herein above, the plea of the defendant that cheque in question had been issued as security, being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected, hence stands rejected. Hence, issue no.1 and 2 are decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff company.
Issue no.3 In case the issue no.2 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
53. The plaintiff company has claimed the pendente-lite and future interest @ 26.67 % p.a. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that interest of justice would be met by awarding pendente-lite and future interest @ 8 % per annum. Issue No.3 is disposed off accordingly.
Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Issue no.4 Relief.
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:46:31 +0530
54. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the Court is M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 28 of 29 ) of the view that the plaintiff company has been able to prove its case against the defendant Vikram Sharma. Thus, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff company and against the defendant Vikram Sharma and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) The plaintiff company is entitled to recover Rs 13,49,466/- (Rs Thirteen Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Six only) from the defendant Vikram Sharma.
(ii.) The plaintiff company is also awarded the pendente-lite and future interest @ 8% per annum.
(iii.) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff company .
55. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
56. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.01.27 12:46:39 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 24.01.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 24.01.2026 (digitally signed on 27.01.2026) M/sCapital Hind Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Vikram Sharma & Ors Date of Judgment 24.01.2026 (Page 29 of 29 )