Jindal LeasefIn Ltd. Vs. Rewa

Jindal LeasefIn Ltd. vs Rewa

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 08, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/684151

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/684151
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mukul Mudgal, J.
Decided On: Sep 08, 1999
Case Number: Suit No. 1850/98
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

A car was purchased by the defendant on the basis of the hire purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, according to which, the defendant had to pay certain installments to the plaintiff - It was found that after paying 11.6 installments, the defendant stopped making any further payments - Although...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order xxxvII

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jindal LeasefIn Ltd.

Advocate Mr. M.S. Vinaik Adv

Respondent

Rewa

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order xxxvII
Reported In: 2000IIAD(Delhi)145

Excerpt

a car was purchased by the defendant on the basis of the hire purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, according to which, the defendant had to pay certain installments to the plaintiff - it was found that after paying 11.6 installments, the defendant stopped making any further payments - although, the defendant had admitted that she had already paid the 12 installments according to the 48 monthly installments - also, the application of the defendant claiming the leave to defend the suit along with the application for condensation of delay in filing the said application was dismissed in default of her appearance during the proceedings - hence, it was held that under order 37 of the civil procedure code, the decree was passed in the favor of the plaintiff in lieu of the certain amount along with the interest to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff - ordermukul mudgal, j.1. this is a summary suit under order xxxv ii cpc on behalf of the plain- tiff praying for recovery of rs. 5,27,320/- along with interest pendentelite & future interest. 2. the plaintiffs case is that one maruti esteem vx car, (engine no. 562183, chassis no. 198591 & registration no. dl-8c-b-6452) was given to the defendant on hire-purchase basis in terms of hire purchase agreement no. jll/996/034 dated 18th september, 1996 between the plaintiff & the defendant. it is further the plaintiff's case that after paying 11.6 installments to the plaintiff, the defendant stopped paying further instal- ments. 3. in her application (ia. 11803/98) for leave to defend the suit, the applicant/defendant admits the purchase of maruti esteem car from the plaintiff in terms of hire purchase agreement entered into between the parties. it is also admitted by the applicant/defendant that she has paid 12 installments. the applicant/defendant has also admitted that in all 48 monthly installments of rs. 15,659-00 were payable. 4. it is also further stated that a balance sum of rs. 3,01,433.00 was payable in october, 1997. 5. the relevant paragraph no. (i) of the affidavit (duly signed & swooned by the defendant) annexed with application for leave to defend reads as follows: 'that with a view to close my case, and to get the vehicle trans- ferred in my name, i approached the plaintiff on 3-12-1997 and discussed the matter with shri rajiv, in charge-cash collection, of the plaintiff and informed him that i wanted to make the entire balance payment in one lump sum and, accordingly, after obtaining his approval and after settling the account, i paid the balance amount of rs. 3,01,433.00 on 3-12-1997 to the plaintiff so that my case should be closed and r.c. of the vehicle trans- ferred in my name and delivered to me. i paid the said amount in cash against receipt issued by shri rajiv, a representative of the plaintiff, with an assurance that the regular receipt would be.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This is a summary suit under Order xxxv II CPC on behalf of the plain- tiff praying for recovery of Rs. 5,27,320/- Along with interest pendentelite & future interest.

2. The plaintiffs case is that one Maruti Esteem VX car, (Engine No. 562183, Chassis No. 198591 & Registration No. DL-8C-B-6452) was given to the defendant on hire-purchase basis in terms of Hire Purchase Agreement No. JLL/996/034 dated 18th September, 1996 between the plaintiff & the defendant. It is further the plaintiff's case that after paying 11.6 installments to the plaintiff, the defendant stopped paying further instal- ments.

3. In her application (IA. 11803/98) for leave to defend the suit, the applicant/defendant admits the purchase of Maruti Esteem Car from the plaintiff in terms of Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties. It is also admitted by the applicant/defendant that she has paid 12 installments. The applicant/defendant has also admitted that in all 48 monthly installments of Rs. 15,659-00 were payable.

4. It is also further stated that a balance sum of Rs. 3,01,433.00 was payable in October, 1997.

5. The relevant Paragraph No. (i) of the affidavit (duly signed & swooned by the defendant) annexed with application for leave to defend reads as follows:

'That with a view to close my case, and to get the vehicle trans- ferred in my name, I approached the plaintiff on 3-12-1997 and discussed the matter with Shri Rajiv, In charge-Cash Collection, of the plaintiff and informed him that I wanted to make the entire balance payment in one lump sum and, accordingly, after obtaining his approval and after settling the account, I paid the balance amount of Rs. 3,01,433.00 on 3-12-1997 to the plaintiff so that my case should be closed and R.C. of the vehicle trans- ferred in my name and delivered to me. I paid the said amount in cash against receipt issued by Shri Rajiv, a representative of the plaintiff, with an assurance that the regular receipt would be furnished at that time of finalization of the case after getting the R.C. of the vehicle transferred in my name. I have constantly been reminding the plaintiff to issue regular receipt, but every time, the plaintiff has been putting me off on one pretext or the other.'

6. No receipt, stated to have been issued by Shri Rajiv, a representative of the plaintiff has been filed by the defendant Along with the application for leave to defend.

7. The defendant is not appearing in this matter pending before this Court for the last four dates, i.e., 11.2.1999, 25.5.1999, 9.8.1999 & 23.8.99 though the defendant was duly served with summons for judgment through her counsel, Mr. S.K. Duggal, on 9.12.98. Even today there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant.

8. On 25.5.1999, the defendant's application for leave to defend (IA. 11803/98) the suit along with application for condensation of delay (IA 11825/98) in filing the application for leave to defend/contest the suit were dismissed in default of the appearance of the defendant.

9. In view of the above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.

10. Accordingly, the suit is decreed. A decree is passed in favor of the plaintiff & against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 5,27,320/- Along with interest from 25.8.1998 till the date of the decree at 24% per annum and from the date of the decree till realization at 8% per annum.

11. The suit is accordingly disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Jindal LeasefIn Ltd. vs Rewa Same Subject Civil Same Judge Mukul Mudgal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order xxxvII

Civil