Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: ..1.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
MHCC010071602019 Presented on : 11/07/2019
Registered on : 15/07/2019
Decided on : 12/01/26
Duration : 06Y : 05M : 31D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
EXH-35
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.55 OF 2019
Jaiprakash Arun Gupta age 38 yrs
of Mumbai, an adult Indian inhabitant, his
residing at Room No. LX-93/1/3, Shankar Chawl,
Pipe Line Road, Near Halao Pul, Kurla, Mumbai-
400 070.
]
]
]
] ..Plaintiff
Versus
NIKHAT JAHANGIR SHAIKH
Age not known an adult Indian inhabitant having
her address at Plot No.8, Room No.96, B.K.C.,
Bharat Nagar, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051.
And Residing Flat No. 204, White House, Building
No.03, S. G. Bharve Marg, Buddha Colony, Kurla
(W.) Mumbai- 400 070.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
..Defendant
Appearance :-
Learned Adv. Mamta Panigrahi for plaintiff.
Learned Adv. Ravikant Puroshit for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
COURT ROOM NO.32.
DATE : 12/01/2026.
J U D G M E N T
[ Delivered on 12/01/2026 ]
1) This is commercial suit filed for recovery of amount.
-- 1 of 7 --
..2.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
The facts in brief are as under -
2) Defendant executed demand promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/-
in favour of plaintiff on 2nd June 2018 towards repayment of amount
received by the defendant. Defendant promised to pay Rs.10,00,000/-
with interest @ 18% P.A. However, defendant did not repay the amount
as agreed. Hence, demand letter was issued on 10th May 2019.
However, defendant did not pay the amount. Amount of
Rs.11,91,835.61/- is due from defendant with interest. Hence, this Suit
for recovery of Rs.11,91,835.61/-.
3) On writ of summons defendant appears and filed his written
statement vide Exhibit-05. According to defendant she did not execute
any promissory note in favour of plaintiff. She has never received
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed false Suit
on the basis of false and fabricated promissory note. Husband of
defendant Mr. Mohd. Jahangir Maqsood Shaikh wanted to sell his flat
at Kurla, Mumbai for consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Plaintiff
assured them he will bring customers for them by publishing the
advertisement in the news paper for the sell of flat. Plaintiff asked them
to sign some papers with thumb impression for authorizing him to
publish the advertisement in the news paper. Accordingly, she signed
the document and put her thumb impression without reading the
contents thereof. She does not understand english language. After
receipt of demand letter from the plaintiff she had sent reply to
advocate by asking the inspection of documents. However, plaintiff did
not comply with the same. She is not liable to pay any amount to
plaintiff. Present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff is illegally doing
the business of money lending without any valid license. Plaintiff has
not completed the formalities required under money lenders Act.
-- 2 of 7 --
..3.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
Hence, suit be dismissed with cost.
4) In view of rival pleadings of both parties issues have been framed
vide Exhibit-23. Thereafter, plaintiff led his evidence. Defendant did not
adduce her evidence. I have heard the arguments of plaintiffs.
Defendant did not make any arguments in spite of grant of sufficient
opportunity. Hence, I record my findings and all the issues for the
reasons stated as under.
ISSUES DECISION
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he has
advanced loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the
defendant with interest thereon @ 18%
p.a. ?
Partly Affirmative.
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the
defendant has executed Demand
Promissory Note in favour of plaintiff for
sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest
thereon @ 18% p.a. ?
Partly Affirmative.
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the
defendant has failed to pay the due
amount of the loan and interest thereon
to the plaintiff ?
Partly Affirmative.
4. Whether the suit is maintainable in view
of Bar of the provisions of The Money
Lenders Act ?
Negative.
5. What order and decree ? As per final order...
R E A S O N S
5) Plaintiff Mr. Jaiprakash Arun Gupta has deposed vide
Exhibit-06. He has relied upon following documents
-- 3 of 7 --
..4.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
SR.NO. Nature of Documents Exhibit
1 Original Money Lending License Exhibit-18
2 Original Demand Promissory Note
dated 02/08/2018.
Exhibit-09
3 Office Copy of Form No.10 of
Money Lenders Act.
Exhibit-16
4 Copy of the Demand Notice dated
10.05.2019.
Exhibit-10 (Colly)
5 Courier receipt. Exhibit-11
6 Defendant Advocate letter dated
17/5/2019.
Exhibit-12 (Colly)
7 Registrar Maintain for Inspection
by Plaintiff.
Exhibit-17
8 Book of Accounts (Cash Book). Exhibit-15
9 Books of Accounts ( Ledger Book) Exhibit-19
ISSUES NO. 1 TO 4:
6) Plaintiff Mr. Jaiprakash Arun Gupta has deposed that defendant
executed demand promissory note of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of
plaintiff on 2nd June 2018 towards repayment of amount received by
the defendant. Defendant promised to pay Rs.10,00,000/- with interest
@ 18% P.A. However, defendant did not repay the amount as agreed.
Hence, demand letter was issued on 10th May 2019. However,
defendant did not pay the amount. Amount of Rs.11,91,835.61/- is due
from defendant with interest.
7) Plaintiff has produced demand promissory note at Exhibit-09.
Defendant has admitted her signature and thumb impression appearing
thereon. On perusal of the promissory note it is evident that defendant
-- 4 of 7 --
..5.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
had promised to pay amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to plaintiff on
02.06.2018. The promissory note was executed for value.
8) According to defense pleaded by the defendant in her written
statement, she did not execute any promissory note in favour of
plaintiff. She has never received amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the
plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed false Suit on the basis of false and fabricated
promissory note. Husband of defendant Mr. Mohd. Jahangir Maqsood
Shaikh wanted to sell his flat at Kurla, Mumbai for consideration of
Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Plaintiff assured them he will bring customers for
them by publishing the advertisement in the news paper for the sell of
flat. Plaintiff asked them to sign some papers with thumb impression
for authorizing him to publish the advertisement in the news paper.
Accordingly she signed the document without reading the contents
thereof. She does not understand english language. After receipt of
demand letter from the plaintiff she had sent reply to advocate by
asking the inspection of documents. However, plaintiff did not comply
with the same. She is not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff. Present
suit is not maintainable as plaintiff is illegally doing the business of
money lending without any valid license. Plaintiff has not completed
the formalities required under money lenders Act.
9) According to defendant plaintiff had obtained her signature with
misrepresentation that signature is required for authorization to
publish the advertisement in respect of sale of flat of her husband.
However, defendant has not adduced any evidence in support of her
defense. Defendant has failed to conduct the cross-examination of
plaintiff, in spite of grant of sufficient opportunity. Defendant has not
produced any evidence in support of her defense. Hence, the case of
-- 5 of 7 --
..6.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
plaintiff as remained and unchallenged.
10) On perusal of evidence and documents filed by the plaintiff. In
my view plaintiff has proved his case on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. Defendant has failed to prove her case. Plaintiff is money
lender. He is claiming interest @ 18 % P.A. On perusal of the
promissory note at Exhibit-09 it is evident that rate of interest is
mentioned there in with rubber stamp. It is not mentioned in the hand
writing. Plaintiff has not produced any other documents to show that
defendant had agreed to pay interest @ 18% P.A. The interest @ 18%
P.A. is excessive. Hence, in my view plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 10% P.A. Therefore,
while answering issue Nos.1 to 3 partly affirmative and issue No. 4 in
negative, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit is partly decreed with costs.
2. Defendant shall pay amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees
Ten Lakh Only) to plaintiff with interest @ 10% P.A.
from 02.06.2018 till the date of decree with further
interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of decree till its
realization.
3. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(Judgment dictated and pronounced in open Court)
( Sachin Suryakant Patil )
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, Court No.32
Dated : 12/01/2026
Dictated and typed on : 12/01/2026.
Signed by HHJ on : 12/01/2026.
-- 6 of 7 --
..7.. Commercial Suit No.55/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Mahesh Shamrao Lugade
Name of Stenographer	12/01/26 05.30 p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ SACHIN SURYAKANT PATIL
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT /
ORDER
12/01/26
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by P.O. on 12/01/26
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 12/01/26
-- 7 of 7 --