Delhi District Court
Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt Ltd vs Raj Kumar on 16 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT) (DIGITAL-04),
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. RAJEEV BANSAL
CS (Comm) No. 438/2022
In the matter of:
M/S RAGHAV ADITYA CHITS PVT. LTD.
Registered office at B-32,
Regency Park, DLF Phase-IV,
Gurugram, Haryana.
COLLECTION OFFICE :
8-A, Pratap Market, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067.
E-mail : [email protected]. ............Plaintiff
Vs.
RAJ KUMAR
S/o Sh. Sita Ram Sharma,
R/o 1-C/2, Jia Sarai, Near
IIT, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. .........Defendant
Date of institution : 28.07.2022
Date on which argument was concluded : 16.12.2023
Date of pronouncement of the order : 16.12.2023
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
1.This suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,12,000/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24 % per annum alongwith cost.
2. It is stated that Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of Chit Funds. It is stated that the present CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 1 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:24:10 +0530 plaint has been filed through Sh. Narender Dutt, Manager of the Plaintiff Company who is duly authorized by the Resolution of the Plaintiff Company to institute the present suit.
3. It is further stated that one Sh. Nazar Mohammad, S/o Sh. Rahmatullah, R/o H. No. 61-A, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi-16, approached the Plaintiff to become a subscriber of the Chit Groups run by the Plaintiff Company. It is stated that Sh. Nazar Mohammad became subscriber of Chit Group No. O-10, Ticket No. 18022 and of another Chit Group No. P-1, Ticket No. 13. It is further stated that both the Chit Groups were for an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs each. It is stated that both the Chit Groups started from the month of September 2011 and ended in December 2014. It is further stated that both the Chit Amounts of Rs. 10 Lakh each, were repayable in 40 monthly installments of Rs. 25,000/- each for each Group.
4. It is further stated that the Defendant alongwith one Smt. Aarti Gaur, W/o Sh. Rajesh Gaur, R/o H. No. 28-A/11-A, Jia Sarai, New Delhi-16 and one Sh. Deep Chand, S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o Village & Post Office Pandwala Kalan, Delhi-43, became sureties / guarantors of the said Sh. Nazar Mohammad in their personal capacity for repayment of Chit Amount.
5. It is further stated that in the auction held by the Plaintiff, Sh. Nazar Mohammad became the successful bidder of Chit Group No. O-10 and was given the prized amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs (Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash on 16.11.2011 and Rs. 1,20,000/- through Cheque No. 342602; Rs. 1,20,000/- through Cheque No. 342603 and Rs.
CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 2 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16
15:24:20 +0530
60,000/- through Cheque No. 342604 - all dated 19.11.2011 drawn on Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi-67).
6. It is stated that at the time of receipt of the prized amounts of the above mentioned Chit, Sh. Nazar Mohammad executed and entered into an Agreement dated 16.11.2011 with the Plaintiff. It is further stated that the Defendant and the above mentioned Smt. Aarti Gaur and Sh. Deep Chand also executed an Agreement of Guarantee dated 16.11.2011 agreeing to make the payment of the balance amount in regular subscriptions. It is further stated that the Defendant and the other two sureties, also executed various receipts and promissory notes as securities in favour of the Plaintiff.
7. It is further stated that in another auction held by the Plaintiff, Sh. Nazar Mohammad became the successful bidder of Chit Group No. P-1 and was given the prized amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs (Rs. 2,40,000/- through Cheque No. 343678 dated 25.02.2013; Rs. 1,20,000/- through Cheque No. 343679 dated 03.04.2013; Rs. 1,20,000/- through Cheque No. 343680 dated 04.04.2013 and Rs. 1,20,000/- through Cheque No. 342630 dated 12.04.2013 - all drawn on Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi-67).
8. It is stated that at the time of receipt of the prized amounts of the above mentioned Chit, Sh. Nazar Mohammad executed and entered into an Agreement dated 01.04.2013 with the Plaintiff. It is further stated that the Defendant and the above mentioned Smt. Aarti Gaur and Sh. Deep Chand also executed an Agreement of Guarantee dated 01.04.2013 agreeing to make the payment of the balance amount CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 3 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:24:31 +0530 in regular subscriptions. It is further stated that the Defendant and the other two sureties, also executed various receipts and promissory notes as securities in favour of the Plaintiff.
9. It is further stated that the Plaintiff Company maintains accounts in its regular course of business. It is stated that all the payments made by Sh. Nazar Mohammad were duly entered in the Accounts maintained by the Plaintiff and as per the Statement of Account, Sh. Nazar Mohammad failed to pay 8 subscriptions of Rs. 25,000/- each, totaling to Rs. 2 Lakhs towards the First Chit Group O- 10 and similarly, he failed to pay 8 subscriptions of Rs. 25,000/- each, totaling to Rs. 2 Lakhs towards the Second Chit Group P-1. It is further stated that there was thus a liability of Rs. 4 Lakhs payable by Sh. Nazar Mohammad.
10. It is further stated that the Defendant and the aforesaid sureties Smt. Aarti Gaur and Sh. Deep Chand, being the sureties of Sh. Nazar Mohammad are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of Sh. Nazar Mohammad to the Plaintiff Company. It is further stated that despite issuance of Demand Notice dated 21.07.2015, the payment was not made.
11. It is further stated that on 19.02.2019, the Principal borrower Sh. Nazar Mohammad and the Defendant, being one of his surety, visited the Plaintiff and gave a written unconditional promise to pay an amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- towards the defaulted subscriptions and interest @ 24% p.a. It is further stated that the payment was however, not made and the Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 4 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:24:43 +0530 09.09.2021 to Sh. Nazar Mohammad and the Defendant alongwith other sureties.
12. It is stated that Sh. Nazar Mohammad issued a Cheque No. 140941 dated 16.12.2019 for Rs. 7,75,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi, against his outstanding dues and interest, but the said Cheque got dishonoured, where-after the Plaintiff got issued a Legal Notice dated 23.12.2019 which led to filing of a Criminal Complaint No. 1823/2020, U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Rouse Avenue Courts.
13. It is stated that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit only against the Defendant being surety of Sh. Nazar Mohammad for recovery of the outstanding dues and interest as he is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the aforesaid outstanding amount which the Principal Borrower Sh. Nazar Mohammad failed to pay.
14. It is further stated that the amount was not paid by the defendant and hence, the plaintiff invoked Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act by approaching South District Legal Services Authority on 29.09.2021 for Pre-Institution Mediation Proceedings, but the defendant did not appear in Pre Institution Mediation proceedings and hence, a Non-Starter Report was issued by South District Legal Services Authority on 17.12.2021, where-after, the present Suit was filed by the plaintiff on 28.07.2022 for recovery of Rs. 11,12,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 5 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:24:55 +0530
15. It is stated that the outstanding amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs towards the unreturned Chit Subscription amount and Rs. 7,12,000/- as interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding dues from January 2015 till May 2022 for both the Chit Groups has been prayed alongwith future interest @ 24% p.a. till the date of realization.
16. Defendant was served on 20.12.2022 through Nazarat Branch, but neither any appearance was entered into on behalf of the defendant, nor any Written Statement was filed by him within the statutory period of 120 days from the date of service of summons, and in the circumstances, vide order dated 11.05.2023, the right of the defendant to file the written statement was closed and the matter was directed to proceed ex-parte against the defendant.
17. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has led its evidence wherein the Plaintiff examined its AR Sh. Narender Dutt, who reiterated the contents of plaint in his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Particulars of Document Exhibits No.
1. Photocopy of Certificate of incorporation of the Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) Plaintiff Company
2. Certified true copy of extract of the resolution of Ex. PW1/2 board of Directors of the Plaintiff, dated 11.05.2022
3. Photocopy of Agreement Dated 16.11.2011 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR)
4. Copy of Demand promissory note, Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) dated 16.11.2011
5. Copy of Acknowledgement of receipts of the bid Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) amount dated 16.11.2011
6. Copy of Agreement Dated 01.04.2013 Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 6 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:25:03 +0530
7. Copy of Demand promissory note, Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) dated 01.04.2013
8. Copy of Acknowledgement of receipts of the bid Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) amount dated 01.04.2013
9. Attested copy of personal ledger of defendant Ex. PW1/9 (OSR) maintained by the Plaintiff of the Chit Group No. O-10
10. Attested copy of personal ledger of defendant Ex. PW1/10 maintained by the Plaintiff of the Chit Group No. (OSR) P-1
11. Photocopies of agreement of guarantees dated Ex. PW1/11 16.11.2011 (OSR)
12. Photocopies of agreement of guarantees dated Ex. PW1/12 01.04.2013 (OSR)
13. Official Notice Ex. PW1/13
14. Original Postal receipt of Official Notice Ex. PW1/14
15. Written request letter/ demand promissory note Ex. PW1/15 dated 19.02.2019
16. Office copy of legal notice Dated 09.09.2021 Ex. PW1/16
17. Original Postal receipt of legal notice Dated Ex. PW1/17
18. Tracking Report of legal notice Ex. PW1/18
19. Non-starter report issued by DLSA dated Ex. PW1/19 17.12.2021
18. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that Sh. Nazar Mohammad had taken two Chits in which Rs. 2 Lakhs each were outstanding in both the Chits as on 27.06.2014. He further argued that as per Section 128 of the Contract Act, it is the prerogative of the Creditor to seek recovery from the Principal Debtor alone or the Guarantor alone or from both - i.e. the Principal Debtor as well as Guarantor. On the question of limitation, learned counsel argued that the Defendant and the Principal Debtor Sh. Nazar Mohammad visited the office of the Plaintiff on 19.02.2019 and executed an unconditional Demand Promissory Note duly signed CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 7 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:25:12 +0530 by both of them to jointly and severally pay Rs. 7,92,000/- to the Plaintiff Company, being outstanding amount towards both the Chits inclusive of interest. He argued that the said written Promissory Note dated 19.02.2019 is an independent agreement covered by Section 25(3) of the Contract Act and the present suit has been filed based on the said Demand Promissory Note. It was argued that the present suit having been filed on 28.07.2022 would be within limitation, after excluding the Covid Period, as per the benefit given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the records of the case.
20. It is a case where the Defendant's liability as a Guarantor has been invoked to pay the debt of the Principal Debtor. The Principal Debtor is Sh. Nazar Mohammad. However, Nazar Mohammad failed to repay the debt to the Plaintiff company on demand. The Plaintiff company has thus preferred to initiate recovery proceedings of the debt against the guarantor i.e. the Defendant, who stood as surety/Guarantor of the debt in question.
21. The Agreements of the Plaintiff with Principal Borrower Nazar Mohammad for both the Chit Accounts are Ex. PW1/3 and Ex.
PW1/6 respectively. Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12 are the two Agreements of Guarantee dated 16.11.2011 and 01.04.2013 which bears signatures of the Defendant as one of the three sureties of the Principal borrower Sh. Nazar Mohammad, the other two being Sh. Deep Chand and Ms. Arti Gaur. Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 are the CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 8 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:25:23 +0530 Account Statements of both the Chit Accounts of the Principal Borrower/Debtor, maintained by the Defendant and both the Accounts show a Debit Balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- each as on 27.06.2014. The Demand Promissory Note dated 19.02.2019 bearing signatures of the Defendant as well as Sh. Nazar Mohammad is Ex. PW1/15. The said Demand Promissory Note reads as under :-
"I, Nazar Mohammad S/o Shri Rahmatullah, R/o H. No. 61-A, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi- 110016, am a subscriber of the Chit group No. O-10, ticket no 18022 and Chit group No. P-1, ticket no. 13 run by M/s Raghav Aditya Chits (P) Limited having is office at B-32, Regency Park, DLF, Phase-IV, Gurugram, Haryana & Collection office at 8-A, Pratap Market, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 (hereinafter referred to and called as 'the said company') I, Raj Kumar S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma, R/o H. No. 1-C/2, Jia Sarai, Near IIT, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, am guarantor of Sh. Nazar Mohammad in Chit group No. O-10, ticket no.
18022 and Chit group No. P-1, ticket no. 13 for the repayment of chit amount in the said chit groups.
I (Nazar Mohammad) was the successful
CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 9 of 17
Digitally signed
RAJEEV by RAJEEV
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16
15:25:45 +0530
bidders in the Chit group No. 0-10, ticket no. 18022 and Chit group No. P-1, ticket no. 13 for a chit value of Rs. 10,00,000/- each and on bidding the said company paid Rs. 6,00,000/- as prized amount in both the chits and I (Nazar Mohammad) signed a set of various documents on 16/11/2011 for Chit group no. 0-10, ticket no. 18022 and on 01/04/2013 for chit group no P-1, ticket no. 13 as bidder and I (Raj Kumar) signed the said documents as the guarantor of Nazar Mohammad.
Due to some unavoidable circumstances I (Nazar Mohammad) was unable to pay the balance installments amount on time and hence I (Nazar Mohammad) am now liable to pay the balance installments without profit and the interest as per the agreement dated 16/11/2011 and 01/04/2013 executed between us and the said company for the respective chits.
We both hereby unconditionally promise to pay Rs 7,92,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Ninty Two Thousand Only) to the said company (M/s.
Raghav Aditya Chits Private Limited). We also request the said company to grant us some CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 10 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:25:52 +0530 more time to pay the said outstanding dues along with the interest. We also assure the said company that if we would not pay the said amount within six months from the date of execution of this letter i.e 19/02/2019 then the said company shall be entitled to recover the above said amount with further interest @ 24% per annum starting from the date of signing of this document till the recovery of the amount as per the agreement signed on 16/11/2011 and 01/04/2013 for the respective chit groups. The said company shall also be free to file criminal as well as civil cases against us in the court for recovery.
We future declare that the contents of this document have been read over and explained to us in our vernacular language / mother tongue and we have understood the same and agree to abide the above promise to pay.
Signed Signed
Nazar Mohammad Raj Kumar
Subscriber Guarantor of Nazar Mohammad"
22. The Plaintiff Company had given the amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs to Sh. Nazar Mohammad, Principal Debtor in November 2011 towards Chit Group O-10, whereas the amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs was given to Principal Debtor Sh. Nazar Mohammad in February / April CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 11 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:25:59 +0530 2013 towards Chit Group No. P-1. The amounts were repayable by the Principal Debtor till December 2014. The limitation to recover the unpaid amount ended in December 2017.
23. Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act provides that a promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay whole or part of the debt which the Creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law of limitation, would be a Contract. In other words, a time barred debt, can be claimed in a suit if it consists of a written and signed promise to pay whole or part of the debt.
24. Section 128 of the Contract Act provides that the liability of the Guarantor is co-extensive with that of the Principal Borrower, unless otherwise provided by the contract. A reading of the Demand Promissory Note dated 19.02.2019 Ex. PW1/15, nowhere absolves the Defendant from the liability to pay the amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- to the Plaintiff Company. Rather, it contains an explicit promise of the Defendant to pay the amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- to the Plaintiff Company with the understanding that failure of the Principal Debtor and Defendant, will result in filing of case in Court for recovery of the said amount. As such, as per Section 128 of the Contract Act, the liability of the Defendant is at par with that of the Principal Borrower. It is also trite that the creditor may initiate legal proceedings against both - the debtor and its personal guarantor simultaneously, or he may decide to proceed in any other preferred sequence. Proceedings against the personal guarantor may be either to recover the entire amount, or the remaining amount. Creditor can sue the surety directly CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 12 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:26:06 +0530 without proceeding against the Principal Debtor. In Bank of Bihar Ltd. v Dr. Damodar Prasad AIR 1969 SC 297, it was laid down that the 'surety' does not have the right to dictate terms to the creditor and ask him to pursue his remedy against the Principal Debtor. It was also laid down in Damodar Prasad (supra) that the very object of the guarantee is defeated if the creditor is asked to postpone his remedies against the surety. ......... A guarantee is a collateral security usually taken by a banker. The security will become useless if his rights against the surety can be so easily cut down.". The creditor can sue the guarantor directly, without proceeding against the Principal Debtor. The creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the Principal Debtor before suing the surety. In SBI v Indexport Regd. 1992 (3) SCC 159 held that it will be noticed that the guarantor alone could have been sued, without even suing the Principal Debtor, so long as the creditor satisfies the court that the Principal Debtor is in default.
25. Section 140 inter-alia provides that where the surety has paid, he steps into the shoes of the Creditor against the Principal Debtor. Section 145 inter-alia provides that in every contract or guarantee, there is an implied promise by the Principal Debtor to indemnify the surety and the surety is entitled to recover from the Principal Debtor the sums rightfully paid by him under the guarantee. In Amrit Lal Govardhan Lallan v. State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1968 SC 1432, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the surety will be entitled to every remedy which the creditor had against the Principal Debtor. It was held that this right of the surety stands not CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 13 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:26:14 +0530 merely upon contract, but also upon natural justice.
26. In the present case, the Chit Amounts of Rs. 10 Lakh each were given on 16.11.2011 in the case of First Chit No. O-10 and on 25.02.2013 in the case of Second Chit No. P-1. The amounts were payable in 40 installments i.e. upto December 2014 in both the Chits. Clearly, the limitation expired in December 2017 in both the Chits. However, the issuance of Demand Promissory Note dated 19.02.2019 (Ex. PW1/15), signed by the Principal Borrower and the Defendant being Surety, would be a separate contract in itself as per Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act and hence, the limitation would be extended till 18.02.2022. By virtue of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 10.01.2022 reported in 2022 (3) SCC 117, the limitation period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood excluded and hence, the present suit having being filed on 28.07.2022 would be within the period of limitation. Relevant part of the Order is reproduced below:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 14 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 15:26:22 +0530
limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.
III. In cases where the limitation would
have expired during the period between
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding
the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 15 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16
15:26:33 +0530
27. The liability of the Guarantor/Defendant to pay would be there as was undertaken by the Defendant in Demand Promissory Note dated 19.02.2019 Ex. PW1/15.
28. The Plaintiff has thus proved that the Defendant had undertaken the liability to pay Rs. 7,92,000/- to the Plaintiff as on 19.02.2019. The amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- consisted of Rs. 4,00,000/- being principal amount of two Chit Accounts and Rs. 3,92,000/- towards interest on this amount, which comes to 12.25% p.a. The rate of interest that was charged, was @ 12.25% p.a. which in itself was a little too high, but agreed by the Defendant, probably because of no bargaining power. In order to balance the bargaining power of the Defendant, this Court feels that since interest at a too high rate @ 12.25% p.a. has already been charged, the Plaintiff would be entitled to interest from the date of filing of the suit now. Although, the rate of interest has been claimed @ 24% p.a. in the Suit, but the same is on a much higher side and this Court feels that Award of interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit would serve the interest of justice in the present case.
29. The Defendant is a resident of Jia Sarai, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Chit Amounts were also given by the Plaintiff Company through Cheques drawn on Canara Bank, Munirka, New Delhi-67. Both these areas are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence, since part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this plaint.
CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 16 of 17 Digitally signed RAJEEV by RAJEEV
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16
15:26:39 +0530
30. The plaintiff is thus, entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- from the defendant with 7% Interest per annum w.e.f. 28.07.2022. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost of Rs. 40,000/- towards the cost of litigation, which includes the Court Fees and other legal expenses.
31. Defendant is therefore directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,92,000/- to the plaintiff with 7% interest per annum w.e.f. 28.07.2022 till the date of realization and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards cost of litigation, within a period of 06 (six) months from today. The Defendant shall however be entitled to recover the amount payable under this Judgment, from the Principal Debtor Sh. Nazar Mohammad, as per Section 140 of the Contract Act, in accordance with law.
32. As a result, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the above terms.
33. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to be Record Room.
Digitally signedRAJEEV by RAJEEV BANSAL Announced in open Court BANSAL Date: 2023.12.16 on 16.12.2023 15:26:47 +0530 (RAJEEV BANSAL) District Judge (Commercial Court) (Digital-04) South,Saket,ND/16.12.2023 CS (Comm) No. 438/22 M/S Raghav Aditya Chits Pvt. Ltd Vs. Raj Kumar Page 17 of 17