Delhi District Court
Vide This Judgment vs Tata Capital Financial Services ... on 28 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND BANSAL,
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 616/18
Lalit Gupta
proprietor of M/s Ankita Communication
A-81, DDA Shed
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2,
New Delhi - 110020.
........Plaintif
VERSUS
1. M/s TATA Capital Financial Services Limited
2. Alok Goel
Sales Head, TCFSL
All at: 7th Floor, Videocon Tower,
Block E-1, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi - 110055.
.........Defendants
Date of Institution : 15.05.2018
Date fixed for Judgment : 19.02.2020
Date of Decision : 28.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide a claim of plaintiff Lalit Gupta for recovery of money preferred against TATA Capital Financial Services Limited which arose after defendant company allegedly failed to refund the complete CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 1 of 10amount deposited by plaintiff with it for seeking approval and disbursement of a loan facility.
2. It is the case of plaintiff Lalit Gupta that he, being the proprietor of M/s Ankita Communications, is engaged in the business of printing works. It is his case that defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,59,21,000/- on 06.03.2017 for purchase of printing equipment and directed plaintiff to deposit Rs. 10,59,417/- in their favour which was done by him. It is averred that later, defendant declined to disburse the loan and returned only an amount of Rs. 9,08, 072/- against the deposited amount. Plaintiff made regular demands of his remaining / outstanding dues of Rs. 1,51,345/- from the defendant by personal visits, calls and e-mails but he was avoided and neglected. Plaintiff issued a legal demand notice dated 15.01.2018 to the defendant thereby calling upon to pay the outstanding amount, however, the notice was replied to. Plaintiff has, thus, prayed for a decree for recovery of aforesaid amount alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
3. On receipt of the suit, summons were ordered to be issued vide order dated 26.05.2018. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement (WS). Replication thereto was submitted by plaintiff.
CS 616/18Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 2 of 104. In the Written Statement, it is the case of defendant that plaintiff had approached for financial assistance under 'equipment finance scheme' to the tune of Rs. 4,59,21,000/- and letter of credit (LC) upto maximum limit of Rs. 3,70,17,500/-. It is the case that defendant issued a sanction letter dated 06.03.2017 in favour of plaintiff subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions mentioned therein within 90 days. Further, in terms of said letter, plaintiff was to deposit an upfront fee of Rs. 11,60,314.93/- including statutory taxes which was accordingly deposited after deducting TDS of Rs. 1,00,897.93/-. The fee included processing fee of Rs. 9,08,070.57/- and applicable statutory taxes amounting to Rs. 1,51,346.43/- payable towards service tax, Swach Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess. The upfront fee, as per the sanction letter was non-refundable. It is the case that statutory taxes of Rs. 1,51,346.43/- were deposited with concerned department. It is averred that plaintiff also failed to comply with other terms and conditions of the sanction letter including payment of margin money and as such, the sanction letter automatically got expired after 90 days. It is averred that after expiry of the sanction, plaintiff again approached the defendant for revalidating the sanction, however, request was not accepted. It is the case that plaintiff requested the defendant to refund the amount of Rs. 10,59,417/- paid by him, however, he was informed that although the amount was non-refundable, nonetheless, as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to refund his amount minus the CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 3 of 10statutory taxes and as such, an amount of Rs. 9,08,072/- was refunded. It is stated that suit has been filed with the sole motive to harass the company and therefore, the same be dismissed.
5. Meanwhile, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion of defendant no. 2 (Sales Head of defendant no. 1) was moved which was heard and allowed on 03.12.2018. Defendant no. 2 was, thus, deleted from the array of parties. On the basis of pleadings, Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 1,51,345/- as prayed for ? (OPP)
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente-
lite and future interest @ 24% per annum ? (OPP)
3. Whether this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? (OPD)
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action ?
(OPD)
5. Relief.
Evidence:
6. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW- 1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. He relied upon the following documents during his examination:
a) Copy of loan sanction letter Mark PW1/A;
b) Copy of Bank Statement Mark PW1/B;
c) Copy of Bank Statement Mark PW1/C;
d) Copy of legal notice Ex. PW1/D;
CS 616/18
Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.Page 4 of 10
e) Postal receipts are Ex. PW1/E;
f) Online Tracking Report of legal notice Mark PW1/F;
g) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.
PW1/G (objected to by learned counsel for defendant as to stage of filing).
The witness was duly cross examined by learned counsel for defendant. On request, plaintiff evidence was closed and matter was taken by up for defendant evidence. In order to rebut the case of plaintiff, defendant examined its AR Alok Goel as DW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
a) Board Resolution Ex. DW1/1;
b) Loan Sanction Letter which is already Ex. PW1/A;
c) Invoice dated 29.03.2017 of Rs. 5,32,127/- as Ex.
PW1/D1;
d) Invoice dated 29.03.2017 of Rs. 6,28,186.93/- as
Ex. PW1/D2;
e) Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant Ex.
DW1/2;
f) Power of Attorney in favour of previous AR as Mark
- X.
The witness was cross examined by learned counsel for plaintiff. Thereafter, on request, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. Arguments were advanced by Sh. Rajender Yadav, Advocate for plaintiff and Sh. Himanshu Singh, Advocate for defendant. I have also gone through the complete available record thoroughly.
CS 616/18Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 5 of 10Findings:
Issue No. 1: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 1,51,345/- as prayed for ? OPP Plaintiff during his examination has primarily relied upon the sanction letter dated 06.03.2017 Mark PW1/A whereby defendant in-principle sanctioned loan facility subject to certain terms and conditions. Plaintiff was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 4,59,21,000/- as equipment finance by defendant. This document has also been relied upon and admitted by defendant. In order to prove payment of upfront fee of Rs. 10,59,417/- to defendant, and refund only of Rs. 9,08,072/- by defendant, plaintiff has filed copy of his bank account statement Mark PW1/B and PW1/C reflecting entries of debit and credit payment. In fact, the factum of payment of Rs. 10,59,417/- by plaintiff as upfront fee and later, refund of Rs. 9,08,072/- to plaintiff is not disputed by defendant at any place throughout its pleadings. The case of plaintiff to this extent is admitted by defendant with slight details at places.
The bone of contention, and the grievance of plaintiff is non-refund of the difference amount of Rs. 1,51,345/-. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that defendant failed to disburse the loan amount as agreed / sanctioned vide letter dated 06.03.2017 (Ex. PW1/A) and therefore, he was entitled to refund of complete amount deposited with defendant. It is emphasized by the counsel that plaintiff completed all the terms and conditions, however, defendant arbitrarily refused disbursal and later, refund of claimed amount. In contrast CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.Page 6 of 10
thereto, defendant has referred to some terms and conditions of the same sanction letter dated 06.03.2017 Ex. PW1/A to reflect that the 'upfront fee' paid by plaintiff was 'non- refundable'. During his cross examination, plaintiff has denied the suggestion that he was not entitled to demand the processing fee back. However, he failed to refute the condition of 'non-refundable' in sanction letter dated 06.03.2017.
There is another aspect to the entire dispute between the parties. While the plaintiff, in his plaint, simply provided two figures of payments made and received and thus, claimed the difference of two; defendant produced two invoices dated 29.03.2017 which are Ex. PW1/D1 & Ex. PW1/D2. Both the invoices were admitted by plaintiff during his cross examination. These invoices point towards two different facilities to be availed by plaintiff; one loan facility of liquidated amount, and second that of letter of credit. Invoice has been raised for the applicable fee for each of the facility totaling to an amount of Rs. 11,60,314/-. Admission of plaintiff to these two invoices lend credence to the theory of deduction of TDS by plaintiff placed before Court by defendant. It is observed that in this regard, plaintiff deposed the following in his cross examination:
"I do not know whether it is mandatory to deduct and deposit TDS at the time of making such huge payment of Rs. 10,59,417/- to defendant. I do not know whether the total processing fee payable to defendant was Rs. 11,60,314.93/- and not Rs. 10,59,417/-. I do not remember whether I had deducted an amount of Rs. 1,00,897.57/- as TDS at the CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.Page 7 of 10
time of paying the processing fee to the defendant. I do not remember whether I had deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,897.57/- with Income Tax Department towards TDS"
In the opinion of Court, concealment of complete details of the transaction in plaint/replication and later an implied denial in cross examination makes the Court observe that plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands.
Further, at no point of time, plaintiff pointed out that there were other terms and conditions to be fulfilled before disbursal of loan amount. Sanction letter refers to payment of margin money to dealer from whom the machine was to be purchased, and that letter was valid for a period of 90 days. Plaintiff admitted the time limit of vadility of letter in his cross examination. He, however, refused / denied that he had to book the machine within 90 days by making payment of margin money to supplier / dealer and deposit of original receipt / booking letter with defendant for release of loan amount. Simultaneously, plaintiff admitted that loan amount was to be disbursed by defendant directly into the account of supplier / dealer towards balance amount of the machinery. He went on to admit that he had not filed any document to show that he had booked the machine within validity period or paid margin money to dealer. He also admitted that he had not given any document to defendant after 06.03.2017. It is observed that plaintiff is blowing hot and cold at the same time. His statements are self contradictory and do not come to his rescue. Defendant, in order to prove its bonafide that the CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 8 of 10amount of Rs. 1,51,395/- received from plaintiff in the form of applicable taxes was deposited with the concerned department of government, has placed a certificate issued in this regard by Chartered Accountant which is Ex. DW1/2. The document has not been put to challenge by the plaintiff.
Concludingly, it is observed that plaintiff has not been able to prove any basis for seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 1,51,395/- from the defendant. Issue No.1 is, accordingly, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
Issue No. 2: Whether plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum.
Since issue no. 1 stands decided against the plaintiff, no ground to discuss the aspect of payment of pendente-lite and future interest on the claimed amount is made out. Even otherwise, there is no averment to support this issue in the pleadings or affidavit of PW1. This issue, being dependent upon issue no. 1, also stands decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
Issue No. 3: Whether this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? (OPD) The affidavit Ex. DW1/A filed by AR of defendant is silent on the aspect of jurisdiction. Further, challenge to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction is oral and merely in form of denial. It is observed that plaintiff works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court, the payment was made and received at the CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 9 of 10same place and all the communications took place from the same office of plaintiff. As such, jurisdiction of the Court is made out. Issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No. 4: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action ? (OPD) In this regard, the affidavit Ex. DW1/A filed by AR of defendant is absolutely silent. This aspect has also not been argued by learned counsel for defendant. It could not have been concluded on the basis of reading of plaint and annexed documents that there was no cause of action. Plaintiff, however, failed to justify, support and prove the same before Court during trial. Issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff. However, after adjudication of issue no. 1, the present issue becomes inconsequential.
Relief On the basis of entire discussion in preceding paragraphs, it is hereby ordered that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The suit of plaintiff is, thus, dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court On 28.02.2020 (ARVIND BANSAL) ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (South-East) Saket Courts, New Delhi CS 616/18 Lalit Gupta vs. TATA Capital Financial Services Limited.
Page 10 of 10