Shri Jaipal Chand Jain v. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

judgment forthwith.

17.6. If any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court."

¶19In view of the discussion aforesaid, it is clear that the defendant has not raised any substantial defence nor any triable issue except raising a sham defence that the rate of interest is manipulated which is contradicted by his own documents, hence, this Court finds that no case for grant of leave to defend is made out to the defendant in the two suits and the two suits are liable to be decreed. Leave to defend applications are dismissed.

CS (COMM) 473/2017

¶1In view of the leave to defend application having been declined, the suit filed by the plaintiff Jaipal Chand Jain is decreed in favour of the plaintiff Jaipal Chand Jain and against the defendant Manoj Kumar Singh decreeing a sum of ₹1,01,44,600/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization.

¶2Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

CS (COMM) 474/2017

¶1In view of the leave to defend application having been declined, the suit filed by the plaintiff Abhishek Jain is decreed in favour of the plaintiff Abhishek Jain and against the defendant Manoj Kumar Singh decreeing a sum of ₹2,57,92,700/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization.

¶2Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 'ga'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on:13th September, 2019 Decided on: 30th September, 2019 + CS(COMM) 473/2017 SHRI JAIPAL CHAND JAIN ..... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr.K.K.Bhuchar, Adv. versus SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH ..... Defendant Represented by: Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv. with Mr.M.P.Singh, Mr.Rajiv Mishra, Mr.Ajay Kumar, Ms.Simmi, Mr.Y.R.Singh, Advs. + CS(COMM) 474/2017 ABHISHEK JAIN ..... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr.K.K.Bhuchar, Adv. for the plaintiff with plaintiff in person versus SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH ..... Defendant Represented by: Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv. with Mr.M.P.Singh, Mr.Rajiv Mishra, Mr.Ajay Kumar, Ms.Simmi, Mr.Y.R.Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA IA 10824/2018 (u/O 37 Rule 3(5) CPC) in CS (COMM) 473/2017 IA 10826/2018 (u/O 37 Rule 3(5) CPC) in CS (COMM) 474/2017 1. Plaintiffs have filed the two suits under Order XXXVII CPC seeking money decrees. 2. Case of the plaintiff in CS(COMM) 473/2017 is that on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff Jaipal Chand Jain advanced a loan through RTGS for a sum of ₹35 lakhs on 3rd February, 2016 for which he executed a promissory note dated 3rd February, 2016. Jaipal Chand Jain further advanced a loan of ₹40 lakhs through RTGS on 20th December, 2014 out of which ₹26 lakhs was paid by the defendant on 16th June, 2015. Jaipal Chand Jain also advanced a loan of ₹10 lakhs through RTGS to the defendant on 7th April, 2016 when again a promissory note of the even date to that extent was executed. 3. The defendant failed to pay the sum, however handed-over a cheque for a sum of ₹35 lakhs to the plaintiff with respect to partial payment of interest accrued which on presentation was returned unpaid with the remarks "funds insufficient". On 3rd January, 2016 Jaipal Chand Jain served the notice of demand, however the money was not received. Hence the suit for recovery for a total sum of ₹1,01,44,600/- along with the interest that has accrued thereon. 4. As per the two promissory notes sum of ₹35 lakhs and ₹10 lakhs were to be returned with an interest of 4% per month. 5. Based on the sums advanced as noted above, through three RTGS from the plaintiff's bank account to the defendant's bank account, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of a sum of ₹1,01,44,600/- along with future interest and cost. 6. In CS(COMM) 474/2017 the plaintiff Abhishek Jain seeks a money decree for a sum of ₹2,57,92,700/-. Case of Abhishek Jain is that the defendant is carrying on business in the name of Mangalya Realtech Private Limited with its registered office at B-7, Ground Floor, Ashoka Niketan, Nanak Vihar, Delhi. At the request of the defendant Abhishek Jain loaned a sum of ₹50 lakhs on 8th December, 2014 to the defendant through RTGS from his bank. The said amount carried an interest @ 3% per month for which a promissory note of even date was executed and that at the time of filing of the suit along with the interest that has accrued the sum entitled to be recovered from the defendant pursuant to the loan dated 8th December, 2014 was ₹93,10,000/-. Again on 10th December, 2014 Abhishek Jain advanced a sum of ₹25,00, 000/- to the defendant @ interest of 3% per month for which promissory note was again executed on the same date. The interest stipulated in the promissory note was 3% per month and thus on the date of filing of the suit a total sum of ₹46,50,000/- became payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on the said note. Abhishek Jain further paid a loan of ₹35 lakhs on 11th March, 2016 at the interest of 4% per month for which a promissory note was executed on the same date and the amount that accrued towards Abhishek Jain till 30th April, 2017 was a sum of ₹54,08,700/-. 7. Two further sums of ₹30 lakhs and ₹15 lakhs were advanced as loan by Abhishek Jain to the defendant on 2nd June, 2016 and 24th June, 2016 respectively for which payments were made through RTGS. The said amount carried interest @ 4% per month and two promissory notes were executed in respect of sum