Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 1 of 8
Suit Lodged on : 15.07.2019
Suit Admitted on : 08.08.2019
Suit Decided on : 08.09.2025
Duration : 06 Years, 01 Month 24 Days
MHCC010072522019
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
Commercial Suit No. 80 / 2019
Exhibit No. 26
Wasim Khan s/o Naseem Khan
Age 45 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o Room No. 301, 3rd floor, Premier
Residency Kohinoor Club, E-Building,
Kurla West, Mumbai. … Plaintiff
V/s.
Raghu Gupta
Age major Occupation : Business
R/o Gupta Transport, Shop No. 4,
Gurunanak Marg Liberty,
Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400 086. … Defendant
Appearances :
Plaintiff : Adv. A.M.A.H Maniyar h/f. Adv. Mohsin Khan
Defendant : Adv. Arun R. Gupta
CORAM : PRASAD P. KULKARNI
COURT ROOM NO.31.
DATE : 08.09.2025
***************************************************************
-- 1 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 2 of 8
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 8th day of September, 2025)
Suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 5,02,500/- with interest.
1. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover an amount of Rs.
5,02,500/- with 18% interest per annum.
Facts giving rise to the suit are as under :
2. Plaintiff is a resident of Kurla (West), Mumbai and is a
businessman. Whereas defendant is proprietor of Gupta Transport. In
the year 2018 defendant approached plaintiff and requested him to
invest some amount in business of defendant. Plaintiff initially invested
Rs.50,000/- and within few days defendant returned Rs.50,000/- with
profit of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Plaintiff again invested Rs.1,50,000/- as per request of
defendant and defendant repaid Rs.2,00,000/-. On 19.09.2018 plaintiff
invested Rs.5,02,500/- in business of defendant. Said amount was
transferred by way of NEFT No. KKBKH18262714517 vide reference no.
924/000100024813. However, defendant not repaid the amount, as
agreed. Plaintiff made further request to defendant, but he did not
make repayment. In December 2018, plaintiff was in need of money.
So, he finally requested defendant to repay the amount, but defendant
failed to pay the amount.
4. Plaintiff issued legal notice Dt. 31.01.2019. It was served on
defendant but defendant not repaid the amount. Plaintiff initiated Pre
Institution Mediation on 16.02.2019. It resulted into Non Starter on
07.06.2019. Hence, plaintiff raised this suit to recover Rs.5,02,500/-
-- 2 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 3 of 8
with 18% interest per annum from the date of suit till realization of
entire amount.
5. Writ of summons was issued to defendant. Plaintiff filed
service affidavit. Defendant appeared and submitted Written Statement
vide Exh.7. Defendant denied the claim and submits that plaintiff is a
businessman engaged in business of scrap material. Whereas defendant
is doing business of road transport. Plaintiff procured a tender for
acquiring scrap material from Gammon Indian Limited. So, for the
purpose of transportation of scrap, plaintiff was in need of 5 trucks.
6. Plaintiff requested defendant to provide 5 trucks. An
Agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff
agreed that he will pay defendant Rs.1,00,000/- per truck per month.
Subsequently, plaintiff approached defendant for loan of Rs.5,00,000/-
for expansion of his business. Defendant paid Rs.3,00,000/- by RTGS on
31.05.2017 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 22.05.2018.
7. Defendant contended that the amount which plaintiff is saying
that he transferred to defendant by NEFT in fact is the amount of
repayment made by plaintiff. Apart from raising friendly loan from
defendant, defendant arranged loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for plaintiff,
which plaintiff borrowed from one Hiralal Yadav. As that amount was
not repaid, so said Hiralal filed Criminal Case against plaintiff vide C. C.
No.1197/SS/2019. Thus, denying entire contention of plaintiff,
defendant prayed for dismissal of suit.
8. Considering rival pleadings, the then Presiding Officer has
framed issues on 04.02.2020 vide Exhibit 8. To prove his case, plaintiff
-- 3 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 4 of 8
examined himself at Exh.9 and relied on Account Statement at Exh.17,
Article-A i.e. photocopy of police complaint, Article-B i.e. photocopy of
reply of defendant to legal notice of plaintiff. Plaintiff closed his
evidence vide pursis Exh. 20. Defendant not adduced any evidence in
rebuttal.
9. I have heard Learned Advocate Mr. A.M.A.H. Maniyar
appearing for plaintiff and perused written notes of arguments vide
Exh.25.
10. In view of Issues Exhibit 8, I have recorded my findings for the
reasons discussed as follows:
Sr.
No.
Issues Findings
1 Does the plaintiff proves that amount of Rs.
5,02,500/- is due against the defendant?
In the Affirmative.
2 Is plaintiff entitled to recover total amount of
Rs. 5,02,500/- along with further interest @
18% p. a. from the defendant?
Plaintiff is entitled
to recover Rs.
5,02,500/- with
9% interest per
annum from the
date of suit till
realization of
entire amount.
3 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within
limitation?
In the Affirmative.
4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is
maintainable?
In the Affirmative.
5 What order and decree As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Issue Nos. 1 to 5
As all issues are interconnected with each other, so they are discussed
-- 4 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 5 of 8
together as under :-
11. I have gone through written notes of arguments submitted by
plaintiff vide Exh.25. I have also gone through oral evidence of plaintiff.
Plaintiff Wasim Khan categorically deposed that defendant requested
plaintiff to invest an amount in his business and twice defendant repaid
handsome amount. Plaintiff on 19.09.2018 transferred Rs.5,02,500/- to
defendant by NEFT. However, defendant did not repay that amount.
Plaintiff vide Exh.17 filed Account Statement on record. Entry Dt.
19.09.2018 very clearly proves a fact that plaintiff had given Rs.
5,02,500/- to defendant.
12. So far as copy of complaint Article-A and copy of reply notice
Article-B is concerned, those are not proved documents. It is so because
primary evidence is not before the Court and plaintiff failed to canvass
any circumstances due to which these copies can be read as secondary
evidence. Despite of this oral evidence of plaintiff and more particularly
Exh.17 had gone unchallenged.
13. Defendant though filed Written Statement on record and
raised inconsistent pleas, but had not conducted cross examination of
plaintiff nor offered any evidence in support of his stand. So merely
because the Written Statement is filed on record, I am not inclined to
accept the pleas raised by defendant. It is not known what prevented
defendant from stepping into witness box.
14. Plaintiff paid Rs.5,02,500/- to defendant on 19.09.2018 and
said amount was to be repaid within a month. As it was not repaid,
notice was issued on 31.01.2019 and Pre Institution Mediation was
-- 5 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 6 of 8
initiated on 16.02.2019. Thus, the suit which is filed in the year 2019 is
perfectly within limitation. Plaintiff advanced amount as investment in
the business of defendant. Considering the very reason, present dispute
is covered by Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. So, it cannot
be said that suit is not maintainable.
15. Thus, oral evidence of plaintiff and Exh.17 is sufficient to
arrive at a conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5,02,500/-.
So far as rate of interest is concerned, as there is no written document
on record, plaintiff is entitled to get 9% interest per annum from the
date of suit till realization of entire amount. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.
1, 3 and 4 in affirmative, issue no. 2 as, “Plaintiff is entitled to recover
Rs.5,02,500/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till
realization of entire amount” and as answer to issue no. 5, following
order is passed :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 80/2019 is decreed with cost.
2. Plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.5,02,500/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Two
Thousand and Five Hundred only) from defendant with 9%
interest per annum from the date of suit till realization of
entire amount.
3. Defendant, within three months from date of this Judgment,
shall pay, Rs.5,02,500/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Two Thousand and
Five Hundred only) to the plaintiff, with 9% interest per
annum from the date of suit till realization of entire amount.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
5. Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open Court.
-- 6 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 7 of 8
6. After compliance and period of Appeal, Shirestedar and AS to
consign Record of the suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 08.09.2025
(Prasad P. Kulkarni)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
-- 7 of 8 --
CS No. 80 / 2019
Wasim Vs. Raghu
Judgment (Exh.26) 8 of 8
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
08.09.2025 5.25 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar
Stenographer - Grade I
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. Prasad. P. Kulkarni
(C.R.NO. 31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
08.09.2025
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 08.09.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on 08.09.2025
-- 8 of 8 --