9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct is stated to be pending in the court of Shri V.K. Goel, M.M. That 3 cheques in sum of Rs. 5 lacs each dated 1.3.2002 were issued by the defendants to the plaintiff for return of the loan. Said cheques, when presented for encashment were dishonoured. 3. It is stated by the plaintiff that though he is entitled to interest @20% per month on the second loan amount, plaintiff was. restricting interest to 22%.per annum. 4. Suit seeks recovery of Rs. 23,61,665/- being Rs. 15 lacs as the principal amount and Rs. 8,61,665/- as interest. Break up of the CS(OS)No.1615/03 interest is as pleaded in para 11, which reads as under:- "11. That the defendants are liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 15 lacs and interest at the rate of 22% p.a. from 18.11.2000 on Rs. 10 lacs and from 4.3.2001 on Rs. 15 lacs i.e. Rs. 64,165 plus Rs. 7,97,500/- total Rs. 8,61,665/- till 3.8.2003. Hence this suit for recovery of Rs. 15,0000 (as principal amount and Rs. 8,61,665 (as interest) totalling of Rs. 23,61,665/-. Th suit for recover is without prejudice to the criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff." 5. Defendant No. l has set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act. (iii). The suit is without cause of action inasmuch as no cheque or promissory note was issued by the defendant No. 1 in the name of the plaintiff." 11. Plaintiff has examined himself as his witness. Defendants have examined himself as their witnesses. 12. In his examination-in-chief, plaintiff has reiterated what he has pleaded in the plaint. Writing dated 18.11.2000 signed by the defendants recording receipt of Rs. 10 lacs has been proved as Ex.PW-1/1. The same reads as under:- "I owe you This is to confirm Aman Bajaj S/o Sh. P.K. Bajaj R/o A-5, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 owe amount of Rs. Ten lacs 10,0000/- only which shall be paid back by me along with 22% Twenty two percent interest p.a. within a period of six months from today dated 18.11.2000 the Interest amount of Rs. 18,333/- eighteen thousand three hundred thirty three only shall be paid by first week of every month. Sd/- Sd/- (PX.BAJAJ) (AMAN BAJAJ)" 13. The second writing dated 4.3.2001 signed by defendant No. 1 has been proved as Ex.PW-1/2. The same reads as under:- "Received Rs. Five Lacs which shall be returned back after six months. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff along with the present suit were signed in blank and were given by the answering defendant to his father, defendant No. 1, as it was told by the father of the answering defendant that those documents were required for the purposes of arranging certain short terms/temporary finances by the Plaintiff and it was in good faith, the answering defendant signed the same and handed over them to the defendant no. 1 and when a dispute arose between the Plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit and another criminal case against the answering defendant merely to twist the arm of the defendant no. 1 and to pressurise him so that the settles the matter at the terms of the Plaintiff." defendant No. 2 did not give any answer. His evidence records a court observation that defendant No. 2 maintained a silence for over 30 seconds. 24. Theor& propounded by the defendants that defendant No. 1 issued blank cheques to enable plaintiff to raise a loan from a bank or raise finances by discounting the cheques does not find favour with me as in said eventuality there would be no requirement for the defendants to have executed acknowledgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 2.2.2006, suffice would it be to note that as held in the report published as 2002 (8) SCC 31, Nutan Kumar & Ors. vs. IInd Additional District Judge & Ors., unless a statute specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provision of the statue would be void, the contract would remain binding between the parties and can be enforced between the parties themselves. Consequences, if any other in law, would follow. 37. Learned counsel for the defendants could not show any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act 1961 or any other law which stipulates that a loan transaction not recorded in the Income Tax Return or a loan transaction which is in violation of Section 69-A, 69-B or Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act would be void. 38. accordingly hold that the suit is not barred under Sections 69-A, 69-B or Sections 2695S of the Income Tax Act. 39. The third issue framed vide order dated 2.2.2006 and Issues No. 1 to 3 framed vide order dated 17.8.2005 have to be decided, in light of the evidence noted above, and discussion on the defence. I hold that the plaintiff has successfully proved advancing of Rs. 15 lacs by way of loan to the defendants. Plainti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
