Final Order 2

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 08.04.202
4
Coram : HHJ Shri V. S. Hingne, Additional
District Judge, (Court Room No.31 :
Commercial Court, Mumbai)
Sr. No.5
Commercial
Suit No.
100012/201
9
Damodar Bale V/s Ramchandra Chilveri
All called, but absent.
Following three Suits are on board today for Judgment.
Suit No. 100012 / 2019 100013 / 2019 100014 / 2019
Plaintiff Damodar
Kuchadri Bal
Vinod
Shankar
Rachha
Babu Balraj
Lakkabathini
Defendants 1. Ramchandra Rajaram Chilveri
2. Roopa Ramchandra Chilveri
Recovery
Claim
. 4,50,000/	₹
Interest @18 %
. 6,00,000/	₹
Interest @18 %
. 11,50,000/	₹
Interest @18 %
Case of Plaintiff from Commercial Suit No. 100012 / 2019
2) Plaintiff is a serviceman.
3) Defendants were in financial crisis in their business.
Hence, they obtained friendly loan of . 4,50,000/ from the	₹
plaintiff. Defendants also executed Declaration on
20.09.2017, confirming receipt of said loan of . 4,50,000/	₹
and agreeing to repay . 13,500/ per month to the plaintiff.	₹
However, since inception, defendants failed to make any
payment.
Case of Plaintiff from Commercial Suit No. 100013 / 2019
4) Plaintiff is a serviceman.
5) Plaintiff has been depositing Rs. 25,000/ per month
through online mode in the bank account of defendant.
Plaintiff expected better returns with interest in said business
of chit funds. Thereby, from 22.03.2017 to 15.06.2018,
plaintiff deposited a total sum of Rs. 4,50,099/. Defendant
agreed to repay the amount with interest @ 2 % per month or
-- 1 of 4 --
more. Thereby, defendant agreed to repay Rs. 6,00,000/ to
plaintiff on or about 11.08.2018. Towards part repayment, the
defendants issued cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/. However, it was
dishonored for reason, Funds Insufficient.
Case of Plaintiff from Commercial Suit No. 100014 / 2019
6) Plaintiff is a self employed person.
7) Since January 2011, from time to time, plaintiff
deposited various amounts with defendant. The total amount
deposited became Rs. 10,07,780/. Defendant agreed to repay
Rs. 12,50,000/ to the defendant. However, after continuous
follow up, defendant issued Cheque for Rs. 11,50,000/.
However, it got dishonored for reason, Funds Insufficient.
8) In all three Suits, it is case of respective plaintiff
that, after continuous follow up by the plaintiff, defendants
issued Cheque whcih was dishonored with bank endorsement
as Funds Insufficient. Recovery notice is recovered with
remark as Unclaimed.
9) It is case of respective plaintiff in all three Suits
that, the transaction is commercial transaction. It is not hit by
provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act. As defendants
defaulted repayment, plaintiff preferred the respective
Commercial Suit for recovery of their amount.
Written Statement by defendants
10) In all three suits, defendant filed WS with similar
contentions. It is contended that, defendant No. 1 is husband
of defendant No. 2. Both were arrested in Crime No. 97 /
2018, registered by GB CB CID EOW, Mumbai, U / Sec. 420
r / w. 34 of IPC with Sec. 3 and 4 of MPID Act. After
investigation, prosecution has filed MPID Case No. 3 / 2019,
which is pending before Sessions Court, Mumbai. In said FIR
No. 97 / 2018, plaintiff has shown himself as Investor.
Thereafter, he deliberately filed the present case, claiming it
as commercial transaction based on Bill of Exchange.
Defendant No. 2 is having money lending license from 2011
to March 2017. Said license is seized by the police in Special
-- 2 of 4 --
MPID Case No. 3 / 2019. Defendants are not in business of
Chit Funds. Suit is hit by the provisions of Bombay Money
Lenders Act. Suit being false, be dismissed with cost.
Conclusion
11) Perusal shows that, respective plaintiff merely
pleaded that, he advanced money to defendant for rich
monetary returns.
12) However, in each Plaint, it is also not case of
plaintiff that, whatever business, defendant was carrying of
providing extra returns, was supported by valid license issued
by the Government Authorities or it was base on some
Mercantile documents. No such mercantile document is filed
by plaintiff.
13) It means that, there is nothing in each Plaint, which
will show that, defendant was lawfully conducting the
business of providing extra monetary returns to the plaintiff.
14) It is also not the case of plaintiff or defendant that,
they are merchants, bankers, financiers and traders and were
performing the transaction under some mercantile document.
In fact, plaintiff has not disclosed under which category or
type or nature, the investment was made with the defendant.
There is no written agreement. There is no mercantile
document.
15) Therefore, all three Suits do not satisfy requisites of
Sec. 2 (1) (C) of the Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, the
Plaint will have to be returned to the Office to reassign it to
proper Court, so that dispute is agitated by the parties
properly and it is adjudicated on merit and that there is no
multiplicity of litigation.
16) Hence, in the interest of justice, following Order is
passed
Commercial Suit No. 100012 / 2019, is not triable as a
-- 3 of 4 --
Commercial Suit. Hence, Registry of this Court is directed to
reregister the Suit and assign the Suit to proper Court other
than a Commercial Court.
Parties to note and comply.
Judge
-- 4 of 4 --