Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:
04. h December, 2014 + CS (OS) No.2162/ 2013 GEETA JAIRATH .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate versus AMIT KUKREJA AND ORS. Through: .... Defendants Ex-parte CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL1 This is a suit for recovery of ₹ 24,92,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. As per the case of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 had approached the Plaintiff along with his brother (Defendant No.2) and mother (Defendant No.3) to seek some assistance for matrimonial alliance of Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff was running a social consultancy for matrimonial alliances from her office at B-6, SF, Shivalik Enclave, New Delhi.
3. During the course of discussions, the Defendants became aware of the good financial position of the Plaintiff, therefore, the Defendants invited the Plaintiff to visit their office at Malviya Nagar. Defendants No.1 and 2 also allured the Plaintiff to lend them some money as the Defendants were in the process of opening a restaurant chain by the name of ‘ALMBROOK’ and the first such restaurant was to be opened in Malviya Nagar. The Plaintiff granted them a loan of ₹ 13 lacs, details whereof have been mentioned in para 10 of the plaint. To secure the aforesaid amount, Defendant No.1 issued a cheque dated 21.12.2011 for an amount of ₹ 13 lacs in the name of the Plaintiff with a request that the same be deposited and encashed, if Defendant No.1 fails to make the repayment of loan within a period of six months. In May, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited the said cheque which was returned back unpaid with reason ‘Funds Insufficient’.
4. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1 had been assuring the Plaintiff of payment of principal as well as good interest, but when the Plaintiff repeated her demands for return of the amount lent and also sent SMSs, Defendant No.1 declined to make the payment forcing the Plaintiff to file this suit.
5. By an order dated 14.03.2014, the Defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.
6. In ex-parte evidence, the Plaintiff has filed her own Affidavit Ex. PW-1/ A, wherein she has corroborated the averments made in the plaint. She also proved the documents Ex. PW-1/ 1 to Ex. PW-1/ 11 which includes the copy of the cheque (Ex. PW-1/
2) issued by Defendant No.1 which was dishonoured on presentation and Ex. PW-1/ 3 which is the text of the messages received by the Plaintiff from Defendant No.1. A criminal complaint dated 06.06.2012 regarding cheating was also made by the Plaintiff against the Defendants.
7. Since the Defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte, the testimony of the Plaintiff and the documentary evidence produced by her has remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
8. On the basis of the evidence adduced, it may be difficult to fasten liability for payment of principal amount of ₹ 13 lacs or interest thereon on Defendants No.2 and 3. The cheques were issued in the name of Defendant No.1 only. Post dated cheque of ₹ 13 lacs was also issued by Defendant No.1 only in favour of the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount of ₹ 13 lacs as advanced by her to Defendant No.1 from Defendant No.1 only.
9. The vital question for consideration is as to the rate of interest to which the Plaintiff is entitled.
10. The Plaintiff has deposed that the Defendants had agreed to pay interest @ 3% per month. However, there is no documentary evidence with regard to agreement to pay interest @ 3% per month, except that a legal notice dated 15.06.2012 Ex. PW-1/ 7 was not refuted by Defendant No.1. The claim of interest @ 3% per month appears to be unconscionable. I am therefore, inclined to award interest @ 12% per annum from the date of grant of loan (on ₹ 50,000/- w.e.f. 19.04.2011; on ₹ 1,00,000/- w.e.f. 28.04.2011; on ₹ 3,00,000/- w.e.f. 30.04.2011; on ₹ 70,000/- w.e.f. 28.06.2011 and on ₹ 7,80,000/- w.e.f. 28.04.2011) till the date of filing of the suit.
11. The Plaintiff would be further entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of judgment and at the same rate from the date of judgment till the realisation of the amount.
12. The suit is decreed in above terms. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE DECEMBER04 2014 vk