inquiry to Shanker Lal Shriram

IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; AD&SJ (CENTRAL)-17,DELHI Suit No. 626/2008 Shri Hukam Chand S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Proprietor of M/s Parmanand jai Bhagwan of B-1/68, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi .....Plaintiff Versus M/s Sant Lal Ram Kishan 3980-A, Naya Bazar, Delhi, Through its sole proprietor Shri Ram Kishan Goel .....Defendant Date of Institution of Suit : 19.03.2008 Date when reserved for orders : 31.08.2010 Date of Decision : 07.09.2010 JUDGMENT Vide this judgment I shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,05,760/- against the defendant. The brief facts necessitating for filing the present suit are as given under; 2 That the Plaintiff has been carried out his own business in the name and style of M/s Parmanand Jai Bhagwan at B-1/68, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as a sole proprietor. The defendant used to accept deposits of loan amount from various shopkeepers in its regular course of business. The plaintiff thus, deposited Rs. 1,95,000/- with the defendant vide cheque no. Suit no. 626/08 Page 1 of 25 219563 dated 29.01.1999 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Naya Bazar, Delhi in favour of the defendant. The said amount carry the interest @ 1.60% per month. The said amount was agreed to be repaid by the defendant to the plaintiff alongwith interest as and when the same was to be demanded by the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant had issued a receipt dated 29.01.1999 in favour of the sole proprietor concern of the plaintiff. The defendant has been making the payment towards the interest time to time to the plaintiff which were debited by the plaintiff in the account. The defendant has made the payment qua the interest up till 31.03.2005. Lastly, defendant paid a sum of Rs. 29,745/- by way of cheque bearing no. 632659 dated 31.03.2005 after deducting Rs. 3,305/- on account of TDS for the period of 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005. As and when the defendant used to deduct amount of TDS, he used to send the TDS certificate to the defendant, however, defendant had deducted Rs. 3,305/- on account of TDS from the amount of interest up to 31.03.2005 yet he has not sent the TDS certificate to the plaintiff. The defendant with a malafide motive has not paid any interest to the plaintiff after 31.03.2005 nor returned the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- that was deposited by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not received any amount of interest for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. The plaintiff demanded money from the defendant, in the last week of March, 2006, however, the Suit no. 626/08 Page 2 of 25 defendant neither paid the amount of interest nor the principal amount to the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff he is entitled to recover Rs. 1,95,000/- on account of principal amount deposited with the defendant and Rs, 1,10,760/- on account of interest from 01.04.2005 to 15.03.2008. Thus he is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 3,05,760/- from the defendant. On the basis of the aforesaid averment, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking recovery of the said amount. 3 In pursuance of the summons the defendant appeared and filed its written statement taking preliminary objection. It is stated that suit filed by the plaintiff is bad on account of incorrect verification of the plaint. It is further averred that suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action and same is barred by limitation as same has been filed beyond the prescribed period. The averment on merit have also been replied. It is submitted that plaintiff used to collect the amount of interest through cheque as well as in cash. It is further submitted that total amount alongwith interest was repaid by the defendant to the plaintiff in two instalments, firstly, in the month of April 2005, and another in the month of June, 2005 and no amount remained due and payable after the aforesaid payments. The said payments were made in the presence of witnesses, namely, Shri Mukesh Suit no. 626/08 Page 3 of 25 Kumar, Shri Purshottam Mittal and Shri Hem Lal, in cash. It is further stated that no amount is due against the defendant either towards the principal or interest. All other averment have also been replied. It is prayed that suit be dismissed with cost. 4 The plaintiff has filed replication denying the averment of the written statement and reiterated the averment made in the plaint. 5 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 21.05.2009 was pleased to frame the following issues for adjudication: - Issue no. 1 Whether the suit is bad and not maintainable on account of incorrect verification of the plaint? OPD Issue no. 2 Whether the suit is without any cause of action ? OPP Issue no. 3 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of the suit amount? OPP Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP Issue o. 6 Relief 6 In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined Sh. Manish Kumar as PW-1 who has exhibited the GPA dated 13.03.2008 as Ex. PW-1/1. He has also exhibited receipt dated 29.01.99 as Ex. PW-1/2. 7 During cross-examination PW-1 stated that he is doing food grain Suit no. 626/08 Page 4 of 25 business with his grand-father. He was neither a partner nor proprietor in the business run by his grand-father. He was was doing it under his guidance. His grand-father is the sole proprietor of the business under the name and style of M/s Permanand Jai Bhagwan which is being run at B- 1/68, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, where his grand-father is residing with him. He has been doing the business with his grand-father for the last 10 years. He was 21 years of age when the loan in question was given to the defendant. The cheque in question towards loan was handed over by him to the defendant. The terms and conditions were settled by his grandfather. His grand-father is about 74 years of age and suffering from illness for the last about one year. He is looking after the business of his grandfather who is not physically fit enough to move about nor he is in a position to come to the court. At present he is not mentally sound enough and completely bed redden. He further stated that he knows the facts stated by him in his affidavit because of his personal knowledge and none of the facts stated therein were ever conveyed or told by his grand father. He has not brought the books of accounts containing the accounts of the defendant therein. He is admitted that prior to appointing him as attorney his grand-father was fully devoted towards his business and was personally looking after the same. His grand-father is an Income Tax Payee. The list of debtors and creditors is duly maintained by his grand-father and it is also Suit no. 626/08 Page 5 of 25 shown in the Income Tax Returns. He admitted that his grand-father has neither filed on record nor he has brought today any Income Tex Returns filed by his grand-father. He has further stated that defendant had paid interest on the loan amount up till 31.03.2005 and interest is due w.e.f 01.04.2005. The interest for this period ending on 31.03.2005 was paid between 20.03.2005 to 30.03.2005. He further stated that from April to December 2005 only interest was demanded and loan amount was never demanded from the defendant. He also admitted that no legal notice was ever sent to the defendant in between March 2000 to December 2005 asking him to return the loan amount or the interest. He denied that whenever the amount of interest was paid by the defendant it was paid to his grand-father directly. He further denied that no amount or any any cheque was ever paid or delivered to him. He also denied that defendant had returned the loan amount in two installments, firstly in April 2005 and second one in June, 2005 in cash. He further denied that no amount is due to the plaintiff against the defendant either towards the principal or interest. He also denied that his grand-father is hale and haughty and is doing business and is deliberately not appear as a witness in the case. 8 In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff , the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and reiterated the averment made in the written statement in his examination in chief. Suit no. 626/08 Page 6 of 25 9 During his cross-examination he admitted that is concern used to be assessed by the Income Tax Department. He does not remember how much amount was deposited by the plaintiff with him in the year 1999. He admitted that interest was agreed @ 1.6% per month. He also admitted that Ex. PW-1/2 was got written on behalf of plaintiff. He also admitted that TDS used to be deducted as and when an amount of interest was to be paid. He further admitted that amount of Rs. 33,050/- used to be accumulated as an interest for an year. He further admitted that an amount of Rs. 3,305/- used to be deducted by them as TDS from the yearly amount. He also admitted that he gave a cheque for a sum of Rs. 29,745/- to the plaintiff on 21.03.2005. He denied that he had not handed over the TDS certificate for the said amount to the plaintiff. They were maintaining accounts regarding the payment as well as TDS. He has not brought the record. He further stated that he cannot produce the said record. He denied that he had never paid any amount qua the interest to the plaintiff in cash. He paid a sum of Rs. one lac alongwith interest on the said amount, amounting to Rs. around 32,000/- in cash on 31.03.2005. No receipt was given by the plaintiff to the said amount. ( He volunterred plaintiff asked him to given the receipt after bringing the same from home). He paid the said amount to the plaintiff at Paschim Vihar. He admitted that plaintiff was residing Paschim Vihar at that time. He is aware that as per Income Tax a Suit no. 626/08 Page 7 of 25 sum of more than Rs,. 20,000/- cannot be paid in cash. He stated that he conveyed the fact of afore stated cash payment to his counsel at the time of filing of written statement. He paid Rs. 95,000/- in cash to the plaintiff on 31.06.2005. He does not remember how much amount was paid by him towards the interest. No receipt was taken by him from the plaintiff for the said amount. He had not received the receipt of the earlier amount at the time when he paid the amount on 31.06.2005 and earlier also. He denied that he had not paid any amount out of Rs. 1,95,000/- recoverable from him. He has further denied that he had not paid any amount to the plaintiff either on 31.03.2005 or 31.06.2005. 10 Defendant has also examined his son Mukesh Kumar Goel as DW-2. During his cross-examination DW-2 stated that first installment was paid by his father in his presence to the plaintiff in the month of April, 2005. As far as he remember it was paid in the end of April 2005. A sum of Rs. one lac paid in cash. No receipt was given by the plaintiff. ( He volunterred that they demanded the receipt but same was not given). Plaintiff assured them that he would give the receipt subsequently. He further stated that no additional amount was paid to the plaintiff on that day towards the interest. Second installment was paid in the month of June, 2005, however, he does not remember exact date. They paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,200/- i.e Rs. Suit no. 626/08 Page 8 of 25 95,000/- towards the principal and remaining towards the interest. The plaintiff had not given receipt of the same as well. They paid said amount in the house of the plaintiff. The accountant of his father used to maintain the accounts. He has not brought the said record today in the court. He can produce the statement of account regarding the transaction of the plaintiff. He denied that they had not paid any amount either Rs. one lac in the month of April 2005 or remaining amount Rs. 1,,00,200/- in June, 2005 as stated by him. The amount was paid by them to the plaintiff after withdrawing from the account of his father again said there was cash amount in shop out of which the said amount was paid. 11 Defendant has also examined Sh. Purshottam Mittal as DW-3. During cross-examination DW-3 stated that he is an accountant and was working with the defendant. He admitted that defendant is his brother-inlaw. He was maintaining the accounts up to March 2005, thereafter the firm of the defendant was closed. He is aware that an amount of more than Rs. 20,000/- in cash cannot be paid as per Income Tax Act. He is not aware if the TDS for the amount towards the interest paid in the month of March 2005 was given to the plaintiff or not. He does not remember exactly as to on which date the defendant paid the amount to the plaintiff in April, 2005. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his affidavit that a Suit no. 626/08 Page 9 of 25 sum of Rs. one lac was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in April 2005. ( He volunteered he mentioned that half amount was paid). No receipt was give by the plaintiff ( He volunterred that he stated that he would given the receipt after the payment of the entire amount). Thereafter in June 2005 a sum of approximately one lac was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. They demanded the receipt the plaintiff said that he would deliver the same through somebody. He is not aware if the defendant has withdrawn the said amount from the bank account as he got call at his residence to come directly at the house of the plaintiff. He denied that no amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff either in April, 2005 or in June 2005. He admitted that prior to March 2005 no amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in cash. 12 Defendant has also examined Sh. Hem Lal Sharma as DW-4. During his cross-examination he admitted that he is working with DW-2. He further admitted that the contents of his affidavit were written at the instance of DW-2. A court question was put to him, if he is aware of the fact written in his affidavit. To which he answered that it contains money transaction between the plaintiff and DW-1. Another court question was put that what was the amount and who paid the said amount to whom. On which he replied that a sum of Rs. two lac was paid by DW-1 to the plaintiff Suit no. 626/08 Page 10 of 25 in two intallments at his house, however he does not remember the date. He further stated that plaintiff had not deposited a sum of rs. 1,95,000/- with the defendant in his presence. He is also not aware as to how much amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on how many occasion and at to what amount was paid as interest. No receipt was given by the plaintiff to the defendant of the amount paid in cash on two occasions. A sum of Rs. one lac was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the end of April 2005. On second occasion an amount of more than Rs. one lac was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, however he does not remember the month and year. It may be in the year 2005 or 2006. No receipt was taken by the defendant on second occasion. Defendant asked for the receipt but plaintiff stated that he would deliver the same. He denied that no amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in his presence. 13 I have heard ld. counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings, documents, and the evidence led by both the parties on record. My issuewise findings is as under:- Issue no. 1 Whether the suit is bad and not maintainable on account of incorrect verification of the plaint? OPD 14 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. Defendant has taken an objection in the written statement that the verification of the suit has not been correctly made as per Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. He has further Suit no. 626/08 Page 11 of 25 mentioned that plaintiff has verified the prayer clause as well on the basis of the information received and believed to be correct, which is absolutely illegal and suit is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand plaintiff has stated that he has correctly verified the plaint and the objection raised by the defendant is unfounded. 15 A perusal of the plaint shows that Para 26 of the plaint relates to the prayer of the suit. However, in the verification clause it is mentioned that paras 22 to 26 are true and correct as per the information received and believed to be correct. 16 Rule 15 or Order 6 CPC provides, how the plaint to be verified. It mentions that the person verifying the plaint must specify as to which para he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies as per the information received and believe to be true. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff has mentioned in the verification that he verify the para 22 to 26 as per true and correct as per information received and believed to be correct. Whereas para 26 is the prayer made by the plaintiff that should not be verified as per the information received and believe to be true. Therefore there is error apparent on the verification of the plaint, however, that error does not go to the root of the matter and could have been correct. It is also relevant that consequences of incorrect verification has not been provided in the CPC. It only provides that how the plaint should be verified. Taking into Suit no. 626/08 Page 12 of 25 consideration the facts and circumstances as the error erupted in the verification is a formal one and does not effect the merit of the case, I am of the considered view that the error erupted in the verification of the plaint does not effect the merit of the case and on that basis only the suit of the plaintiff cannot be dismissed. The issue no. 1 is accordingly decided. Issue no. 2 Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPP Issue no. 3 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD Issue no. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of the suit amount? OPP 17 The issues no. 2, 3 & 4 are taken together as they are interconnected. The onus to prove issue no. 2 & 4 is upon the plaintiff whereas onus to prove issue no. 3 is upon the defendant. The plaintiff has set up a case that he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- with the defendant by way of cheque bearing no. 219563 dated 29.01.99 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Naya Bazzar, Delhi. The said amount was agreed to be repaid by the defendant to the plaintiff with interest @ 1.6% per month. The said amount was agreed to be repaid by the defendant to the plaintiff on demand. As per the plaintiff defendant paid interest regularly to the plaintiff up till 31.03.2005, however, he has not handed over the TDS deducted for the payment made on 21.01.2005. The defendant admitted the above fact that the plaintiff has deposited the said amount with him which was payable with interest @ 1.6 % per month and same was payable on demand. However, the defendant Suit no. 626/08 Page 13 of 25 has set up a plea that he paid the entire amount to the plaintiff alongwith interest in two installments i.e, firstly, in the month of April, 2005 and another in June, 2005 and no amount remain due and payable after the aforesaid payment. In order to prove their respective case, both the parties have led their respective evidence. 18 A careful examination of the pleadings and evidence led by both the parties on record clearly shows that it is an admitted case of the parties that plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- with the defendant which was payable alongwith interest @ 1.6 % per month. 19 Ld. counsel for the defendant contended that plaintiff has failed to prove on record any cause of action for filing the present suit thus suit is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that as per the plaintiff the suit amount was payable on demand. However. the plaintiff has failed to prove that any demand was made by the plaintiff before filing the present suit. Therefore, the suit has no cause of action. Ld. counsel for the defendant further contended that the present suit is governed by Article 22 of the Limitation Act which clearly stipulates that the time for filing the demand shall start to began from the date when the demand is made. In the instant case as plaintiff has failed to prove on record that he made any demand from the defendant, therefore he has no cause of action for filing the present suit. Suit no. 626/08 Page 14 of 25 20 On the other hand ld. counsel for the plaintiff contended that in the plaint itself it is specifically mentioned that plaintiff demanded the amount in the year 2006. He further contended that filing of suit against the defendant itself is a demand and, therefore, the plaintiff has a cause of action of filing the present suit. He also contended that defendant has admitted the fact that the amount was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant which was to be payable alongwith interest @ 1.6% per month . Therefore, the plaintiff has cause of action for filing the present suit. Section 22 of the Limitation Act read as under;- Description of suit Period of limitation Demand from which period being to run For money deposited under an agreement i.e it shall be payable on demand including money of customer in the hands of his banker so payable. Three years When demand is made 21 A perusal of the Article 22 is clearly shows that time to file suit against defendant in a case where deposit was made shall start running from the date when the demand was made. Article 22 is similar to Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Suit no. 626/08 Page 15 of 25 The Hon'ble Patna High Court in Baijnath Soti Vs. Bihari Ram Sham Lal reported as AIR 1933 Patna 701 has held that “under Article 60 the period of limitation for a period to recover money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, is three years from the date when the demand is made. The making of the demand is entirely dependent upon the volition of the plaintiff and the period of limitation may be indefinitely prolonged and a suit may be instituted without even a demand being made, in which case no question of limitation arises. 22 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.E.A Annamalai Chettiar and another, Vs S.V.V.S Veerappa Chettiar and others reported as AIR 1956, Supreme Court 12 has held that “ There was really no proof of any demand having been made by the plaintiffs upon the defendants for payment of their moiety of the deposit and the defendants without any such demand having been made. If that was so the period of limitation had not commenced to run against the defendants and the suit against them was well within time. With regard to concurrent finding returned by the Trial Court as well as the High Court that no demand was made within the period prescribed under Article 60. If that was so, the suit was certainly not barred by the Law of Limitation. This contention of the appellant also therefore fails”. Suit no. 626/08 Page 16 of 25 In view of the well settled preposition for filing the suit under Article 60 of the old Act and Section 22 of the new Act of Limitation, no specific demand is required to be made to the defendant for making the payment and filing of suit against the defendant itself amount to an demand made by the plaintiff against the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has cause of action for filing the present suit and he has also filed the present suit within a period of limitation. Defendant has admitted the fact that the plaintiff paid the said amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- which was payable alongwith interest @ 1.6% per month. It is also admitted that he executed receipt Ex. PW-1/2 in favour of the plaintiff. The only defence taken by the defendant is that he repaid the amount in two installments. 23 In order to prove his defence the defendant examined himself as DW-1. During his examination in chief in para 2 he stated that he paid the entire amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- in two installments i.e first in the last week of April 2005 and second last week of June, 2005. It is further mentioned that Up-to-date interest from April to June, 2005 was also paid and no amount remained unpaid to the plaintiff after June, 2005. During his cross-examination DW-1 admitted that he used to deduct the TDS from the interest amount. He also admitted that the amount of Rs. 33,050/- used to be accumulated an an interest for an year on which TDS used to Suit no. 626/08 Page 17 of 25 be deducted. He said that they were maintaining the accounts regarding the payment as well as TDS. He has not brought the said record. He further stated that he cannot produce the said record. He further stated that he paid a sum of Rs. one lac alongwith interest on the said amount amounting to Rs. 32,000/- in cash on 31.03.2005. No receipt was given by the plaintiff to the said amount. He Volunteered that plaintiff asked him to give the receipt after bringing the same from home. He further admitted that plaintiff was residing at Paschim Vihar at that time. He further stated that he paid the remaining amount of Rs. 95,000/- in cash to the plaintiff on 31.06.2005. He does not remember how much amount he paid towards the interest. No receipt was taken by him from the plaintiff for the said amount. The said amount was also paid in Paschim Vihar. He also not received the receipt for the earlier amount at that time when he pad the amount on 31.06.2005 and earlier also. 24 Defendant neither in the written statement nor in examination in chief has made mention that how much amount he paid in each installment. During his examination in chief he stated that first installment was paid in the end of April 2005, however, during the cross-examination he stated that first installment was made on 31.03.2005 alongwith interest of Rs. 32,000/- to the plaintiff. However he has not made even a whisper regarding the payment of interest during his examination in chief or in his Suit no. 626/08 Page 18 of 25 written statement. 25 Defendant has also examined his son Mukesh Kumar Goel as DW-2. He also reiterated the aforesaid averment in para 2 of his examination in chief. During his cross-examination DW-2 deposed that first installment was paid by his father in his presence in the month of April 2005. As far as he remember it was in the end of April 2005. A sum of Rs. one lac was paid in cash. No receipt was given by the plaintiff. They demanded the receipt but the same was not given. No additional amount was paid to the plaintiff on that date towards the interest. Second installment was paid in the month of June, 2005, however, he do not remember the exact date. He further stated that he does not know if more than Rs. 20,000/- cannot be paid in cash under the Income Tax Act. The accountant of his father used to maintain the record. He has not brought the record today but he can produce the statement of account regarding the transaction of the plaintiff. The testimony of DW-2 is contrary to the testimony of DW-1. DW-1 has stated that first installment was paid on 31.03.2005 whereas DW-2 has stated that it was paid in the end of April, 2005. DW-1 has further submitted that a sum of Rs. 32,000/- was also paid towards the interest whereas DW-2 has categorically stated that except Rs. one lack no additional amount was paid at the time of making the payment of first Suit no. 626/08 Page 19 of 25 installment. 26 The defendant has also examined Sh. Purshottam Mittal as DW-3. He has also reiterated the said fact in para 2 of his examination in chief. During his cross-examination DW-3 stated that he was working with the defendant. He admitted that defendant is his brother-in-law. He is aware that an amount of more than Rs. 20,000/- in cash cannot be paid as per Income Tax Act. He left his job in March, 2005. He do not remember exactly as to on which date defendant paid the amount to the plaintiff in April 2005. A sum of Rs. one lac was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in April. He admitted that has not mentioned in his affidavit that a sum of Rs. one lac was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in April 2005. No receipt was given by the plaintiff. Second installment was paid in June 2005 approximately one lac was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. They demanded the receipt from the plaintiff who said that he would deliver the same through somebody. He is not aware if the defendant has withdrawn the said amount from the bank account or not. He admitted that prior to March 2005 no amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in cash. 27 The defendant has also examined one Sh. Hem Lal Sharma as DW-4 who also reiterated the averment in para 2 during his examination in chief. During his cross-examination he admitted that contents of his Suit no. 626/08 Page 20 of 25 affidavit were written at the instance of defendant no. 2. In reply to the court questions, he described the nature of the transaction, however he submitted that he was not present when the plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- with the defendant. 28 A careful examination of testimony of DWs clearly shows that there are inherent contractions in there testimony. As per DW-3 prior to March 2005 no amount was ever paid in cash whereas DW-1 has stated that the amount of interest being paid through cheques as well as in cash. None of the Dws has mention in their examination in chief as to how much amount was paid in first installment and in second installment. However, during their cross-examination they have given the different figure which is admittedly beyond the pleadings. DW-1 has stated that the interest was also paid whereas none of the defendant's witness never deposed this version. During their cross-examination all the defendant's witnesses have mentioned that no receipt was given by the plaintiff and he assured that the receipt would be given subsequently. However, the defendant has not made any whisper to the fact as to what action he has taken against the plaintiff when he did not deliver the receipt despite assurance. The defendant has not made any demand from the plaintiff or has not taken any action against the plaintiff since June 2005 till the filing of the suit. The plaintiff has categorically denied that he received any amount from the Suit no. 626/08 Page 21 of 25 defendant in cash. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined Sh. Manish Kumar as PW-1. During his cross-examination he was suggested by the defendant that he returned the loan amount in two installments firstly in April 2005 and secondly in June 2005 in cash those suggestions have been denied by PW-1. However, the defendant has not drawn attention of the PW-1 on the point as to how much amount was paid on first installment and how much was paid on the second installment to the plaintiff. PW-1 was also cross-examined or confronted by the defendant that he demanded the receipt from the plaintiff but he did not given and assured to supply the same later on. In the absence of any crossexamination of PW-1 on this aspect, by the defendant the plea taken by the defendant remained unproved. 29 Ld. counsel for the defendant contended that plaintiff has not examined himself and led evidence through PW-1 who is his attorney thus an adverse inference to be drawn against him. PW-1 in Para 1 of his examination in chief has stated that plaintiff is his grand-father who has appointed him as his General Power of Attorney vide GPA dated 13.03.2008 Ex. PW-1/1. He further deposed that he is fully conversant with the facts of the present case and the plaintiff is ill and now a days he is confined to bed and he cannot see properly because of Cataract in his both eyes. During his cross-examination PW-1 stated Suit no. 626/08 Page 22 of 25 that he is doing food grain business with his grand-father. He his doing it under his guidance. He further stated that he was 21 years of age when the loan in question was given to the defendant. At that time he was under the guidance of his grand-father. Cheque in question towards the loan was handed over by him to the defendant and the terms and conditions on which the loan was given are within his knowledge. His grandfather at presently about 74 years of age and suffering from illness for the last one year. He is looking after the business of his grand father. His grandfather is not physically fit enough to move about nor he is in a position to come to the court. He is completely bed ridden. Said deposition of PW-1 has not been contradicted or challenged by the defendant and same remained unrebutted. The PW-1 is the grand son of the plaintiff who was doing business with him. H was also residing in the same house. PW-1 during his testimony categorically stated that he has personal knowledge of the entire transaction and his grandfather, is not capable to attend the court as he was bed written. The said testimony of PW-1 remained unchallenged thus same cannot be discarded. 30 It is admitted case of the parties that an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant which was payable alongwith interest @ 1.6% per month. As per the plaintiff after 31.03.2005 defendant have neither paid the principal amount nor any Suit no. 626/08 Page 23 of 25 amount towards the interest . However, defendant has taken a plea that entire amount was paid in two installments to the plaintiff but defendant has failed to prove the same on record. Defendant has not put sufficient material on record on the basis of which it can be said that the amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in two installments. There are material contradictions in the testimony of defendant witnesses which goes to the root of their defence and makes their defence highly improbable. 31 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances my issueswise findings is as under: Issue no. 2 Plaintiff has fully proved on record that he has cause of action for filing the present suit thus issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue no. 3 Defendant has failed to prove that suit is barred by the limitation, however, plaintiff has successfully proved that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation. therefore this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 4 Plaintiff has fully proved that he paid a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- to the defendant which was to be paid alongwith interest @ 1.6% per month. He has further proved on record that defendant has not paid any amount either towards the principal or towards the interest to the plaintiff after Suit no. 626/08 Page 24 of 25 31.3.2005. Plaintiff has thus discharged the onus of issue no. 4, same is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP 32 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be just and expedient if plaintiff is awarded interest @ 12 % p.a from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Issue no. 5 is accordingly decided. 33 Relief In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 3,05,760/- is decreed with cost. A Decree for recovery of Rs. 3,05,760/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled for interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT) on 07.09.2010 Additional District Judge Delhi Suit no. 626/08 Page 25 of 25
Nile Agro Industries Limited.
We want to buy some products from your company, product name, model no. and specification as below: please kindly qoute prices of organic ginned cotton and conventional cotton , we are a serious buyer of cotton lint constant multitons awaiting your answer to communicate further... 2011-07-07 04:14:57
Pt. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk
i am interest on buying minimum order of one 40ft container size copy paper 70gsm A4. Please send me quote CIF Philippines including brand name, terms of payment, product specs etc. My direct email is ***. Looking forward for a long term business partnership. thank you... 2011-07-07 03:03:20
Kotan Dynamics Limited
Our company is the producer and exporter of the antifreeze, motor oil, brake fluid. See our web site: www.vamp.ua... 2011-07-07 02:53:22
SC Chimprod SA
We want to buy some products from your company, product name, model no. and specification as below: I am looking for 25kg of Benzoic acid powder. please also include the shipping costs in the quote.... 2011-07-07 02:48:00
Eurofyntex
We want to buy some products from your company, product name, model no. and specification as below: Somet:92/93 Loom Parts,Thema 11/11E,Polyster Fabric Weaving Machine.Let us us know price list of your product CIF Karachi-Pakistan. Hoping to receive a your positive response at your end. yours faithfully, for Faraz Enterprise Mirza Wajahat Ali Marketing Manager Tel-92-2-34255865 Fax-92-21-34630737 Mob-92***... 2011-07-07 02:36:49
Navaixa (London) Ltd
Dear Mr. Sir/Madam, We specialize in manufacturing batteries, battery chargers and adapters with high quality and competitive prices. Hope to cooperate with you! Samples can be sent for your evaluation! Any inquiry, pls contact us! Thanks! Best regards! Linly Hu Dongguan Large Electronics Co., Ltd *** *** ***: linly_*** ***6 ***... 2011-07-07 02:10:31
Sdv Trade Sarl
Dear Sirs, we are an Italian trading company with 2 branch offices located in China and Hong Kong. We have been in business for more than 15 years and we are very experienced in the Asian market. Due to the recent high demand received from the chinese market, We are currently looking for some rabbit skins (frozen) suppliers and we are wondering if you have the capacity to sell them to us. We would be able to immediately buy 2 container loads/month = about 140-150.000 skins. Our experience and lo... 2011-07-07 01:50:03
SHUN SAN ENTERPRISE CO LTD
We want to buy some products from your company, Can you send us some picture of your ceramic mechanism . Qty order about 5000 to 10000 pces Best Regards . Mr MOREL... 2011-07-07 01:41:55
Mitex Holland bv
We want to buy some products from your company, product name, model no. and specification as below: Call me on oo***0 Ben / Flamingo text.... 2011-07-07 01:38:44
Yongjin Trading Company
We want to buy some products from your company, product name, model no. and specification as below: do u sell fabric? we r interested in buying fabric from u. pls contact me, i present LLC Ruteks, Russian trading company.... 2011-07-07 01:36:50
Trupti International Co.,ltd.
We want to buy some products from your company, product name, model no. and specification as below: 100% Cotton Y.D. fabrics. 1X20'FCL.... 2011-07-07 01:30:08
Suzhou Guanhua Paper Factory
to the authorized, we have been trying to reach you for approximately one week. We are interested in your taermal papers and we will have a huge order. Our CEO will be in Shangai and Suzhou betweem July 10-15, we intend to have a meeting with you between these dates, please return this mail from the mail address we give above Best Regards... 2011-07-07 00:59:42

Home  Product Directory  Company Database  Sourcing Leads  Sign In  Join Free  RSS  
© 2024 Business Directory, All Rights Reserved.