2011 (12) TMI 767 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of a sum of Rs.17,14,242/- with interest.
2. Acknowledgment of debt and confirmation of accounts.
3. Alleged wrongful statement of accounts by the defendant.
4. Payment of Rs.1 lakh by the defendant.
5. Demand for dues by the plaintiff.
6. Applicability of Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules.
7. Defendant's defence and leave to defend.
8. Limitation period for filing the suit.

Summary:

1. Recovery of a sum of Rs.17,14,242/- with interest:
The plaintiff sought a final judgment and decree against the defendant for the recovery of Rs.17,14,242/- together with further interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 1st April, 2007 until payment and other consequential reliefs.

2. Acknowledgment of debt and confirmation of accounts:
The plaintiff claimed to have lent Rs.10 lakhs to the defendant, with interest agreed at 15% per annum. The defendant allegedly acknowledged this liability by issuing confirmation of accounts for the periods from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001, and 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002.

3. Alleged wrongful statement of accounts by the defendant:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant wrongfully showed the amount due as Rs.10 lakhs instead of Rs.10,33,213/- in the statement of accounts for the period from 1st April, 2002 till 31st March, 2003, and omitted the interest payable.

4. Payment of Rs.1 lakh by the defendant:
The defendant paid Rs.1 lakh by cheque dated 18th June, 2004, but failed to pay the balance despite repeated demands.

5. Demand for dues by the plaintiff:
The plaintiff demanded dues by a letter dated 30th November, 2004, received by the defendant on 1st December, 2004, but the defendant failed to make further payments.

6. Applicability of Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules:
The plaintiff invoked Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules for summary final judgment. Relevant rules (3, 4, 5, 6, and 9) were cited, emphasizing that the Judge should pronounce judgment unless the defendant shows a good defence.

7. Defendant's defence and leave to defend:
The defendant denied liability and claimed the Rs.10 lakhs was a capital contribution, not a loan. The Court found this defence to be sham and unsubstantiated. However, the defendant also raised a limitation defence, arguing the suit was filed beyond the limitation period.

8. Limitation period for filing the suit:
The plaintiff argued the suit was filed within the limitation period, citing the filing date as 15th June, 2007, in the computer section. The Court noted discrepancies in the filing date and the issuance of the Writ of Summons, which was out of time. The question of limitation required further adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Court rejected the application for final judgment and granted the defendant leave to defend the suit, noting that the defendant had raised a potentially valid defence regarding the limitation period.