9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is the foster sister of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that on persuasion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the appellant deposited a sum of 1,49,000/- on various dates in the bank account No. 10001952591, State Bank of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, of respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1. The details of the same are as under: 14.5.2010 -- Rs. 24,000/- 17.5.2010 -- Rs. 25,000/- 18.5.2010 -- Rs. 25,000/- 19.5.2010 -- Rs. 25,000/- 20.5.2010 -- Rs. 25,000/- 21.5.2010 -- Rs. 25,000/-" 2. The appellant had also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,21,000/- on various dates in the bank account of proprietor firm of respondent No. 1 i.e. M/s. Universal Infrastructure Phase-II, Mohali, bearing No. 11971131000893, Orienta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal pay in slips Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW1/12 of making deposits in the bank accounts of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He also filed six original pay in slips Ex. PW-1/13 to Ex. PW-1/18 with respect to the amount which he had deposited in the account of respondent No. 3. He also filed one original postal receipt Ex. PW-1/19 dated 22.2.2013 addressed to the respondent No. 1. The copy of the report of pre-litigative Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 22.5.2014 is Ex. PW-1/20. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Trial Court appreciated that in the month of May, 2010 the appellant had deposited Rs. 3,70,000/- in the bank account of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and further Rs. 1,50,000/- in the bank account of respondent No. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onth of May, 2010. The suit was filed by the appellant on 23.8.2014. The appellant has not placed on record any written agreement executed between the parties. He also not examined any other witness that the respondents had agreed to return the amount with interest @24% per annum. Since learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Article 22 of the Act and has also disputed the applicability of Article 19 of the Act, it is necessary to advert to both the Articles of the Act, which read as under: 14. Article 19 of the Act applies to a suit for recovery of money payable on account of money lent for which the period of limitation is three years and time from which the period of limitation begins is the date when the money is lent. Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
