TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is a clear admission by the appellants to repay the loan on behalf of their corporate entity. Insofar as there is an acknowledgement and undertaking on behalf of two individuals – appellant nos. 1 & 2 to repay the loan on behalf of their corporate entity/respondent no. 2, and the appellants would fall within the purview of Order 39 Rule 10 CPC. The impugned order directing them to deposit the said monies cannot be faulted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - FAO 412/2017 & CM APPL. 38371/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-3-2018 - MR. NAJMI WAZIRI J. Appellants Through: Mr. Puneet Goel, Advocate Respondents Through: Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocates NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral) 1. The learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for or that it is due to another party. It then referred to portions of Written Statement filed by the appellant/defendant and observed as under:- 8 The only point urged by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants to resist the prayer in the IA is that there is no admission of loan amount by the defendants. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff invites attention of this court to the written statement filed by the defendants in the present suit. At the preliminary objections at Para 7 (iii), there are clear cut admissions which are re-produced as under: 7 (iii) That at the time of grant of the said loan amount, the said Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal i.e. husband of the plaintiff took various blank signed cheques from the Defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of arguments on behalf of the defendants to deny the transaction would be only a dry argument. Therefore the point arising for determination in the IA is answered in favour of the plaintiff-applicant . (emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the aforestated avernments, the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 85 lacs within 30 days failing which the defence shall stand struck off. While, it is not in dispute that the loan was taken by the corporate entity/respondent no. 2 and the loan would have ordinarily to be repaid by it, but something more transpired regarding the repayments. Of the 24 cheques issued towards repayment of the interest @ 1.5% per month, 19 cheques for ₹ 1.5 lacs each had been encashed till Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usive of interest at the rate of 24% till the date of filling of the suit with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal sum of ₹ 10,00,000.00 with costs against defendant No. 1. Plaint is rejected against defendant No. 2 . 7. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 14/2010 Mukesh Hans Anr. vs. Smt. Uma Bhasin Ors. decided on 16.08.2010. 8. Upon examination of the records adduced by appellant nos. 1 and 2, and respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 1, in particular, a legal notice dated 16.04.2013 issued on behalf of the defendants, the appellant nos. 1 and 2 admitted and undertook to repay the loan amount. Their said legal notice inter alia reads as under:- 8. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimate to you addressee (s) on time telephonically . 9. In addition to the aforesaid acknowledgment of the loan, the appellants/defendants had already admitted in their WS, as quoted hereinabove that, Pradeep Agarwal - the husband of the plaintiff had taken from Girdhari Lal (D1) and his wife Manju Lal various signed blank cheques from the latter s account. The cheques pertained to their private account and not of the corporate entity R-2; that appellant nos. 1 2 requested to (sic) said Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, for making the balance payment of loan shortly . In other words, there is a clear admission by the appellants to repay the loan on behalf of their corporate entity. Insofar as there is an acknowledgement and undertaking on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
