9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an accommodation loan to M/s. Synthetic Wire Industries P. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 12A, Camac Street, Flat No. 2B, Calcutta-17 (hereinafter referred to as "the company"). According to the petition, the agreed rate of interest was 18% per annum. In order to secure the repayment of the loan of Rs. 45,000, the company along with the then board of directors of the company, namely, Meghraj Berlia, Mohit Kumar Berlia, Lalit Kumar Berlia, Amit Kumar Berlia and Sujit Kumar Berlia along with Kamal Kumar Khaitan and Smt. Kamala Khaitan, executed a hundi and/or promissory note for Rs. 45,000 on May 15, 1981. It is the case of the petitioner that the money still remains unpaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mithu Chakrabarti 45,000 3. Shri A. R. De 45,000 4. Shri Shanti Kant Jhingan 40,000 Shri A. R. De, whose name is mentioned against Sl. No. 3 in the aforesaid minutes, is the petitioner before me. My attention was also drawn to Ex. C to the petition which is a letter dated September 25, 1981, from the company signed by its director, Mohit Berlia, to the petitioner. It records "Our hundi No. 44, dated May 5, 1981, for Rs. 45,000 taken as loan". The letter states that the company could not honour the hundi in the stipulated time due to paucity of funds. The letter, however, contains an assurance that the entire sum will be paid within November 10, 1981. It is also stated in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , letters Nos. SEI/755/81-82, SWI/756/81-82, SWI/757/81-82 SWI/758/81-82, all dated September 15, 1981, respectively, addressed to all the lenders, as mentioned above, and signed by one of the directors of the company, Sri Lalit Kumar Berlia, were sent to the said lenders through peon as well as by registered post with acknowledgment due." The chairman requested the board to confirm the following which were unanimously adopted by the board. That the letters, as mentioned above, written by the company to Mrs. Mithu Chakrabarti, Mr. A. R. De, Mr. Shanti Kant Jhinghan Mr. N. N. Chakrabarti, signed by Sri Lalit Kumar Berlia, be and are hereby cancelled. That the payment of interest on the said borrowings at 18% per annum accrued up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing paragraph contains a somewhat inconsistent plea that Meghraj Berlia and others without specifying who the others are have already paid in full settlement of the claim of the petitioner and they are holding a receipt for the same. According to this paragraph, Meghraj Berlia has already informed the company that they have paid the amount due to the petitioner in full and as such the question of further payment does not arise. Mr. Mookherjee, appearing for the petitioner, emphatically stated before me that all the documents of the company, portions whereof have been extracted above, fully corroborate the case of the petitioner in every detail. He also pointed out the fact that the reply to the statutory notice contains clearly inconsiste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een the petitioner and the said Meghraj Berlia and others that the said sum of Rs. 40,000 together with interest at 18% per annum would be repaid to the petitioner by the said Meghraj Berlia and others. The company has been duly informed by the said Meghraj Berlia by his letter that he has duly paid the said loan together with interest accrued thereon to the said petitioner." As correctly pointed out by Mr. S. B. Mookherjee, the pleading of this agreement, which I have just now extracted immediately above, is an improvement on the reply to the statutory notice where no such agreement is pleaded at all. Mr. P. K. Das also sought to contend that the hundis have not been properly stamped and as such they cannot be enforced in law. The hund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced before me by Mr. Das at the hearing of this application and was directed to be kept in the custody of the Registrar, Original Side, until my decision in this case. The receipt is signed by one A. Chakraborti and is to the following effect: "Received from Sri Meghraj Berlia and others, on behalf of my father-in-law, Sri A. R. De of 156/1B Harish Mookherjee Road, Calcutta-25, the sum of Rs. 45,675 (Rupees forty-five thousand six hundred and seventy-five only) in full and final settlement of the loan taken along with interest accrued till date." It is clear from the receipt that the signatures of Mr. A. Chakraborti and the body of the receipt has been written by two different hands and in two different kinds of ink. In the affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
