Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CS SCJ No. 612986/16 Geeta Kumari vs Chintu Taneja @ Ashu Page No. 1 /7

1, namely Mr. Jatin stood as a guarantor for the defendant No. 1.

2. It is contended that at the time of taking the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ defendant No. 1, assured the plaintiff to return the same within 10­15 days but after passing of the said period. It is stated that in case defendant No. 1 failed to pay the said amount then defendant No. 2, who stood as guarantor, will pay the said amount but both of them neglected to pay the said short term loan amount and only after great persuasions made by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 issue an account payee cheque of Rs. 1 Lakh against the said loan amount in favour of plaintiff. It is averred that at the time of giving cheque, defendant No. 1 made request to the plaintiff to present the said cheque after one month and thereafter again after one month defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff not to present the said cheque and in order to maintain a cordial relationship plaintiff did not present the said cheque for encashment. It is stated lastly the defendant asked the plaintiff not to present the cheque as he would make the entire payment in cash but plaintiff presented the said cheque the same was returned with the remarks outdated cheque as the validity period of three months for presenting the said cheque had expired. It is stated that despite repeated requests defendant did not return the loan amount and in with an intention to usurp the hard owned money of the plaintiff, defendant had left his premises without giving any information to anyone about his whereabouts. It is stated that only after great persuasion plaintiff got the address of defendant No. 1. It is stated that defendant No. 2 had also misbehaved with the plaintiff, when he demanded his money back. It is stated that lastly, when plaintiff contacted defendant No. 1 on 05.07.2016 and demanded the said amount but defendant No. 1 flatly refused to pay any amount. It is stated that leaving with no other other plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 26.07.2016 to the defendants thereby calling upon them to pay the above said amount along with interest. It is stated that both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay an Rs.1,00,000/­ @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 18.08.2013 till actual realization of the same. Hence, the present suit.