Final Order 3

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 1 of 15
MHCC010126502019 Suit Filed on : 18.10.2019
Arguments Heard : 21.03.2024
Decided on : 30.04.2024
Duration : 04 Y, 06 M, 13 Days
City Civil & Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
(Additional District Judge : Vijay S. Hingne, LL. M.)
Commercial Suit No. 100246 / 2019 Exhibit No.36
Plaintiff : Babulal Manikchand Mundra
Proprietor : M/s. D. M. Fabrics India,
Room No. 19 / 20, 2nd floor, 29 / 31,
Khadak Street, Kanji Jadhavji Building,
Near Satkar Hotel, Mumbai 400 009.
VERSUS
Defendants 1 Akshay J. Gupta
2 Ritu A. Gupta
406-B, Versova Raj Mandir CHS Ltd.,
Off Yari Road, Versova, Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 061.
Appearances
Plaintiff
: Adv. Shri Kaizar Kharawala.
Adv. Ms. Ankita Mohite.
Defendants
: Adv. Shri P. S. Tiwari.
Suit for Recovery of ₹. 21,31,862/-
************************************************************************
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on this 30th Day of April, 2024)
Suit is preferred for recovery of . 21,31,862
₹
/- with
interest @ 18 % per annum.
-- 1 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 2 of 15
Case of Plaintiff :
2) Babulal Manikchand Mundra, Mumbai, Maharashtra,
(hereinafter,
plaintiff) is Karta of Babulal Mundra (HUF). Said
HUF is carrying Proprietary business as M/s. D. M. Fabrics India.
Defendant No. 1 Akshay J. Gupta and defendant No. 2
Ritu A. Gupta, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (hereinafter,
defendants
D1 / D2) are borrowers.
3) On request of defendants, plaintiff advanced loan of
.20,00,000/- to defendants for business. Defendants executed	₹
Bill of Exchange, Loan Agreement, both Dt. 19.07.2011 and
agreed to repay loan in installment with interest @ 18 % p. a.
4) Towards part-repayment, defendants issued 16 Cheques
of total consideration of .9,40,000/-. However, they were	₹
dishonoured. Hence, plaintiff filed Complaint U / Sec. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act against defendants.
5) On 17.11.2017, defendants paid . 60,000/-.	₹
As on 30.09.2019, there was liability of . 21,31,862/-.	₹
Plaintiff issued recovery Notice on 10.05.2019, which
was unclaimed by defendants.
On 03.05.2019, plaintiff filed Pre-Institution Mediation
Application No. 724 / 2019. Defendants appeared, but mediation
failed. Hence, Non-Starter Report was issued on 22.10.2019.
Therefore, on 18.10.2019, plaintiff preferred present
Commercial Suit No. 246 / 2019, for recovery of ₹. 21,31,862/-
with interest @ 18 % p. a.
Case of Defendants (Written Statement , Exh. 6, Dt. 18.02.2020) :
6) Defendants prayed for dismissal of Suit, on grounds as :
1. In CC No. 773 / SS / 2013, parties executed Consent
Terms on 15.03.2014. Accordingly, defendants issued
47 Cheques, of .60,000/- each and thereby paid total
₹
. 18,60,000/-.
₹
2. As per Clause 3 (c) of Consent Terms, plaintiff was to
-- 2 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 3 of 15
deposit Cheques in 47 installments. However, plaintiff
abruptly presented 16 Cheques for encashment. Hence,
they got dishonoured. Thereby, plaintiff himself
violated the Consent Terms.
3. Plaintiff corrected date on Cheques. However, for that,
he took signature of only defendant No. 1 and not that
of defendant No. 2, who is also joint Account Holder.
4. Plaintiff filed CC No. 1566 / SS / 2018 before the
Learned MM, Court No. 70, Sewree, Mumbai. Thereby,
present Suit is not maintainable U / Sec. 11 of the CPC.
5. Plaintiff do not have money lending license..
6. Plaintiff did not disclosed part-payments of defendants.
7. Loan Agreement and Bill of Exchange are of 2011. Suit
is filed in 2019. Hence, Suit is barred by limitation.
Evidence of Plaintiff :
7) Oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff :
PW1, Exh. 8 : Evidence Affidavit of Babulal Mundra.
Exh.10 : Bill of Exchange Dt. 19.07.2011.
Exh. 11 : Loan Agreement Dt. 19.07.2011
Exh. 12 : Account Statement.
Exh. 13 : Office copy of Demand Notice Dt. 10.05.2019.
Exh. 14 : Two Postal Receipts Dt. 10.05.2019.
Exh. 15 : Two returned envelops from address of defendants.
Exh. 20 : Photocopy of CC No. 6900773 / 2013, Babulal
Mumdra Vs. Akshay Gupta, U / Sec. 138 of NI
Act, with Consent Terms Dt. 15.03.2014.
Exh. 21 : Photocopy of CC / 1566 / 2018, Babulal Mumdra
Vs. Akshay Gupta, U / Sec. 138 of NI Act.
Exh. 22 : Evidence closure pursis Dt. 12.07.2022 by plaintiff.
Evidence of Defendants :
8) Oral and documentary evidence of defendants :
DW1, Exh. 23 : Evidence of defendant Akshay Gupta
Exh. 24 : Evidence closure pursis Dt.18.08.2022 by defendant.
Issues for Determination :
9) Heard Adv. Shri Kaizar Kharawala, Adv. Ms. Ankita
-- 3 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 4 of 15
Mohite for plaintiff. Heard Adv. Shri P. S. Tiwari for defendants.
Perused plaintiff’s written arguments at Exh. 25 (Dt.
19.06.2023), additional written arguments at Exh. 34 (Dt.
04.03.2024).
Perused defendant’s written arguments at Exh.29 (Dt.
20.01.2024), additional written arguments at Exh. 35 (Dt.
21.03.2024) and citations at Exh. 33.
Suit was also referred for mediation. Parties also tried
settlement on their own. However, settlement failed.
Issues framed by my Learned Predecessor are
reproduced here. My findings and reasons are as follows :
Issues
Findings
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the plaintiff had advanced a sum
of Rs. 20 Lacs towards loan at the
rate of 18 % per annum to the
defendants?................................... In the Affirmative.
2 Whether the plaintiff proves that
an amount of Rs. 14,70,000/- as
the principal amount is due and
payable by the defendants?.......... In the Negative.
3 Whether the plaintiff proves that
an amount of Rs. 6,61,862/- as
interest from 01.04.2017 to
30.09.2019 is due and payable by
the defendants?............................. In the Negative.
4 Do the defendants prove that by
virtue of the consent terms dated
15.03.2014 filed in C.C. No.
773/SS/2003 before Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Sewree, the defendants has paid
Rs. 18,60,000/- to the plaintiff?.... In the Negative.
5 Whether the suit is barred by
limitation?.................................... In the Affirmative.
6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for an amount of Rs. 14,70,000/-
towards principal and Rs.
6,61,862/- towards interst? If yes
at what rate of interest?................ In the Negative.
7 What Order and decree?.............. As per final Order.
-- 4 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 5 of 15
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Issue No. 1 :
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff had advanced
₹. 20 Lacs towards loan @18% p.a. to the defendants?
10) Plaintiff claimed that, on 19.07.2011, he advanced
.20,00,000/- to defendants and on 19.07.2011 itself, defendants	₹
executed Bill of Exchange (Exh.10) and Loan Agreement
(Exh.11), acknowledging the debt and its repayment.
Regarding both documents, defendant Akshay Gupta
(DW1, Exh. 23) deposed during cross-examination as :
….. Exh. 11 bears my signature on last page of
execution. It is correct to say that Exh. 11 also bears
signature of defendant No. 2, namely Ritu Gupta.
Defendant NO. 2 Ritu Gupta is my wife. I cannot
confirm that whether I signed the loan agreement after
receipt of loan amount. It is correct to say that plaintiff
has advanced loan of Rs. 20 lakhs to me. Now I am
shown Exh.10 i.e. Bill of Hundi. It bears my signature
on revenue stamp. Exh.10 also bears signature of my
wife on left side of the document in the caption
“Accepted”. …..
Thus, defendants are admitting execution of Bill of Exchange at
Exh. 10 and Loan Agreement at Exh. 11. Hence, they are relied.
These documents proves that, plaintiff had advanced loan of .	₹
20,00,000/- @ 18 % p. a. and that defendants have received said
amount. Therefore, Issue No. 1 is answered in the Affirmative.
Reasons as to Issue No. 4 :
4 Do the defendants prove that by virtue of the consent
terms dated 15.03.2014 filed in CC No. 773 / SS / 2003
before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Sewree, the
defendants has paid ₹. 18,60,000/- to the plaintiff?
11) Consent Terms
Dt. 15.03.2014 are filed before this
Court at Exh. 20. Defendants claimed that, he made payment as
stated in it. However, before this Court, three is no documentary
evidence, either from plaintiff or defendants, regarding said
-- 5 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 6 of 15
compliance from Consent Terms.
In absence of evidence, Issue is answered in Negative.
Reasons as to Issue No. 5 :
5 Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
12) Suit is under challenge on point of limitation. Hence,
the
relevant dates,
as pleaded by plaintiff, are tabled as follows :
Date
Event
19.07.2011
Bill of Exchange
Loan Agreement
Loan of ₹. 20,00,000/- advanced by plaintiff.
Part-payments made from time-to-time.
17.11.2017 Part-payment of ₹. 60,000/- made by defendants.
10.05.2019 Legal Notice by plaintiff
03.05.2019 Dispute was subjected to Pre-Institution Mediation
22.10.2019 Non-Starter Report.
18.10.2019 Suit is filed.
13) Plaintiff is claiming that, he had advanced loan to
defendants on
19.07.2011.
Therefore, three years limitation, for plaintiff, to prefer
recovery Suit, will commence from
20.07.2011 and will conclude
on
19.07.2014.
Thus,
after 19.07.2014, the Pre-Institution Mediation
was initiated (03.05.2019) and Suit was filed (18.10.2019).
Hence, from date of advancement of loan and execution
of documents (19.07.2011), the Suit is filed on 18.10.2019 i.e.
after 3 years. Hence, on that count, Suit is barred by limitation.
Limitation on the strength of Consent Terms Dt. 15.03.2014 :
14) Admittedly, Consent Terms are signed on 15.03.2014.
Consent Terms are proved before the Court, but its
compliance is not proved before the Court.
Irrespective that, even if limitation is calculated from
the date of Consent Terms Dt. 15.03.2014, then the limitation, for
plaintiff, to file recovery Suit, will commence from 16.03.2014
-- 6 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 7 of 15
and will conclude on 15.03.2017.
Hence, from date of Consent-terms (15.03.2014), the
Suit is filed on 18.10.2019 i.e. after 3 years. Hence, on that count
also, Suit is barred by limitation.
Limitation on the basis of Loan Agreement :
15) In Loan Agreement Dt. 19.07.2011 (Exh.11), in Para
No. 2, parties agreed about repayment schedule as follows :
The Borrowers shall re-pay the entire Loan in 48 Equal
Monthly Installments each of Rs. 58,750/- (Rupees Fifty
eight thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) which
would be inclusive of the element of accrued interest at
the mutually agreed rate of 18% p.a. The Borrowers
shall re-pay the entire Loan, within a period of 4 years
commencing from 25th January 2012 and terminating on
25th day of December 2015.
Thereby, Loan Agreement (19.07.2011) asked defendants to
repay loan amount within 4 years i.e. from 25.01.2012 to
25.12.2015.
16) So, limitation for the plaintiff to file the recovery Suit
on basis of above Loan Agreement will commence from
26.12.2015 and it will conclude on 25.12.2018.
Hence, from repayment-date (25.12.2015), the Suit is
filed on 18.10.2019 i.e. after 3 years. Hence, on that count also,
Suit is barred by limitation.
Part-payments :
17) Plaintiff claimed that, there was part-payment by
defendants. Regarding same, plaintiff pleaded in Para No. 7 &
No. 8 of the Plaint, as follows :
7. The Plaintiff submits that from time to time the
Defendants made some part payments, which payments
have been partly credited towards the principal loan
amount and partly towards the accrued interest, as more
particularly stated in the statement of appropriation of
-- 7 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 8 of 15
payments, annexed hereto and marked Ex.“C”.
8. The Plaintiff submits that after appropriating the part
payments received by the Plaintiff from the Defendants,
a principal sum of Rs. 15,30,000/- remained due and
payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, as on
31.03.2017. The Defendants made a further part
payment of Rs. 60,000/- on 17.11.2017 and thus a
principal sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- have remained due and
payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
Thus, plaintiff is claiming
part-payment from time-to-time and
another
part-payment of .60,000/- on 17.11.2017
₹ .
Part-payments from time-to-time :
18) Regarding part-payments from time-to-time, plaintiff
did not disclosed :
1. On what exact dates, defendants made part-payments,
2. What was mode of those part-payments, whether it was
cash or through cheques or through other instruments,
3. At what place, part-payments were made.
Part-payment of .60,000/- on 17.11.2017 :
₹
19) Plaintiff is claiming that, there was further part-payment
of . 60,000/- on 17.11.2017.	₹
However, again plaintiff has not disclosed about mode
of said payment as to whether it was by cash or by cheque.
20) If there was part-payment, then plaintiff ought to have
pleaded in the Plaint as well as in the evidence affidavit, all its
relevant details as to, dates, mode of those part-payments.
However, plaintiff is not disclosing details of time-to-time part-
payments and also part-payment of . 60,000/- of 17.11.2017.	₹
In absence of these details, it is difficult to accept the
case of plaintiff regarding, part-payments.
Contents of part-payments in the Notice :
21) Plaintiff claimed that, he had issued notice on
-- 8 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 9 of 15
10.05.2019 (Exh.13) asking the defendants to make repayment.
In its Para No.3 and Para No.4, plaintiff stated as :
3. My client states that from time to time my client has
been requesting you to make payment of the loan
amount alongwith accrued interest, however for one or
the other reason and on one or the other pretext, you did
not make payment of my client’s dues.
4. At this junction my client is not referring to the series
of events, correspondence, consent terms etc, signed and
executed by you with my client, however my client
states that till date whatever payments, my client have
received from you, have been appropriated partly
towards the accrued interest and partly towards the
principal loan amount, as more particularly stated in the
statement of account annexed hereto.
In Para No. 3 plaintiff stated that, despite repeated
requests, the defendants did not made any payment. In same
Notice, at Para No. 4, plaintiff stated that, the defendants made
part-payments.
Thus, in same notice, plaintiff is making contradictory
statements about part-payments. It creates doubt as to, whether
part-payments were actually made or not.
Whatever case may be, this contradictory statements
shakes credibility of plaintiff.
22) So, after execution of Bill of Exchange and Loan
Agreement on 19.07.2011, plaintiff failed to prove part-
payments. Hence, Suit filed on 18.10.2019 is barred by limitation.
Limitation on the basis of Statement of Accounts :
23) Plaintiff filed Account-Statement at Exh. 12. It bears
entries from 18.07.2011 to 31.03.2019.
It needs consideration as to whether the Account-
Statement can bring the Suit Dt. 18.10.2019, within limitation.
Most surprising aspect of Account-Statement is that, it
is
computer generated one page document.
-- 9 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 10 of 15
Account-Statement does not bear name of plaintiff firm
or name of defendants firm.
Plaintiff claimed himself to be HUF and Proprietary
firm, carrying business in the name and style of M/s. D M
Fabrics. In that backdrop, it is surprising that, Account-Statement
is on simple page and not on letter-pad of plaintiff HUF.
This one page computer generated document, is also not
accompanied with Certificate U / Sec. 65-B of Evidence Act.
Most importantly, plaintiff did not pleaded and
explained the relevant entries from said Account Extract, either in
the Plaint or in the Evidence-Affidavit.
Therefore, one page Account-Statement is not sufficient
to prove anything for the plaintiff. It will also not bring the Suit
within limitation.
Admission by defendants in Evidence-affidavit Dt. 02.08.2022 :
24) Defendant Akshay Gupta filed Evidence-Affidavit
(DW1, Exh. 23, Dt. 02.08.2022), wherein in Para No. 15, he
deposed as follows :
15. I say that I am entitle to pay the sum of Rs.
15,30,000/- (Fifteen Lakh Thirty Thousand) remain due
and payable by me to the plaintiff on 21-03-2017 I say I
am not entitle to pay sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- (Fourteen
Lakh Seventy Thousand) have remain due and payable
to the plaintiff. I deny that principal sum of Rs.
14,70,000/- (Fourteen Lakh Seventy Thousand) and Rs.
6,61,862/- (Six Lakh Sixty one Thousand Eight
Hundred and Sixty Two) has accrued interest @ 18 %
p.a. calculated from 1-4-2017 to 30-09-2019
aggregating to a Sum of Rs. 21,31,862/- (Twenty one
Lakh Thirty one thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty two)
remain due and payable by me.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed Pursis at Exh. 31 (Dt. 14.02.2024)
stating as follows :
The Defendant in his affidavit in examination in chief
dated 02.08.2022 has in para no. 15 admitted that he is
-- 10 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 11 of 15
entitled to pay the sum of Rs.15,13,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakh Thirteen Thousand only) and not the sum
of Rs. 14,17,000/- towards the claim of the Plaintiff and
the Plaintiff is ready and willing to accept the said Rs.
15,13,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Thirteen Thousand
only) with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. from the date
of filing of the suit till payment or realization and pray
that a judgment be pronounced for the said Rs.
15,13,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Thirteen Thousand
only) as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.
Plaintiff contended that, on 02.08.2022, defendants admitted the
liability. Thereby, it will amount to revival of limitation. Further,
in view of said admission, plaintiff is entitled for Judgment on
admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. Therefore, the
claim of recovery is within limitation.
25) Defendants filed reply at Exh. 32 claiming that,
throughout the Suit, defendants are denying the liability in clear
words. Said Paragraph No. 15 of evidence-affidavit of DW1
Akshay Gupta is having typographical mistake. Such one
paragraph with typing mistake cannot be termed as an admission.
26) It is settled position of appreciation of pleadings and
evidence that,
entire pleadings, evidences, answers in cross-
examination, are to be collectively appreciated and on its
strength, intention of party is to be ascertained. Single statement
or line or paragraph, cannot be appreciated in isolation.
In present case,
during the Written Statement,
cross-
examination of plaintiff,
own examination of the defendants, the
defendants are consistently contending that, he is not liable
against the claim and that the Suit is barred by limitation.
In backdrop of continuous stand taken by the defendants
throughout the trial, then Para No. 15 of the evidence affidavit, is
an isolated fact.
Said Paragraph No. 15 cannot be considered as clear
-- 11 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 12 of 15
and unequivocal admission on the part of defendants.
Therefore, the defense raised by the defendants that,
said paragraph is having typographical mistake, wherein the word
Not and likewise words, got inadvertently omitted, is acceptable.
27) So, typographically mistaken paragraph Dt. 02.08.2022,
also cannot bring the Suit within limitation.
Conclusion :
28) All aspects relating to limitation are summarized as :
1. Bill of Exchange / Loan Agreement is Dt. 19.07.2011.
From that date, the Suit is barred by limitation.
2. Consent Terms are executed on 15.03.2014. From that
date also, the Suit is barred by limitation.
3. Loan Agreement provided payment date till 25.12.2015.
From that date also, the Suit is barred by limitation.
4. Plaintiff claimed part-payments from time to time.
However, he did not plead and proved exact dates of
those part-payments. Plaintiff claimed, defendants made
part-payment of . 60,000/- on 17.11.2017. However,
₹
that part-payment is not proved. Hence, from that date
also, the Suit is barred by limitation.
5. Plaintiff has relied on Account-Statement. However,
said self interested Account-statement, without any
supporting evidence, will not help the plaintiff. So, on
that ground also, the Suit is barred by limitation.
Thereby, all contentions of plaintiff, to bring Suit within
limitation, fails. Hence, against Bill of Exchange Dt. 19.07.2011,
Suit filed by the plaintiff on 18.10.2019, is held to be barred by
limitation. Therefore, Issue No. 5 is answered in Affirmative.
Reasons as to Issue No. 2, No. 3, No. 6 and No. 7 :
2 Whether the plaintiff proves that an amount of ₹.
14,70,000/- as the principal amount is due and payable
by the defendants?
3 Whether the plaintiff proves that an amount of ₹.
6,61,862/- as interest from 01.04.2017 to 30.09.2019 is
-- 12 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 13 of 15
due and payable by the defendants?
6 Whether plaintiff is entitled for an amount of ₹.
14,70,000/- towards principal and ₹.6,61,862/- towards
interest? If yes, at what rate of interest?
7 What Order and decree?
29) In view of negative finding as to Issue No. 5, plaintiff is
not entitled for recovery.
30) However, plaintiff has preferred Commercial Suit. So,
the maintainability of the Suit needs to be tested against Sec. 2 of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Hence Suit is to be tested against Sec. 2 (1) (C) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
No transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders :
31) As per Sec. 2 (1) (C) (i),
dispute and transaction will be
of
Commercial nature, if it is, ordinary transactions of
merchants,
bankers,
financiers and
traders.
32) In para No. 4 of the Plaint (Exh.1), plaintiff Babulal
Mundra pleaded as follows :
The plaintiff states that pursuant to the request made by
the Defendants to provide them a loan and advance of
Rs. 20,00,000/- for their business requirements, the
Plaintiff lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- to
the Defendants under a bill of exchange dated
19.07.2011 for Rs. 20,00,000/- coupled with a loan
agreement dated 19.07.2011, signed and executed by
both the Defendants.
33) In backdrop of Sec. 2 (1) (C) of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015, and above pleading, following facts are ascertained :
1. Plaintiff came up with case that, he provided loan to
defendants on 19.07.2011.
2. It is not the case of plaintiff that, he repeatedly provided
loan to defendants.
-- 13 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 14 of 15
3. It is also not case of plaintiff that, he is in business of
providing such loans to numerous persons and that he is
having license to that effect.
4. It means, this loan transaction is the only transaction
between plaintiff and defendants.
So, transaction between plaintiff and defendants is an isolated act
of loan transaction. It means, plaintiff is not
financier or
banker.
Plaintiff has also not claimed himself to be
financier or
banker.
Therefore, isolated transaction cannot be termed as ordinary
transaction between banker / financier.
No Commercial Transaction :
34) Plaintiff claimed that, defendants needed said amount
for his business requirement.
As Suit is filed U / Sec. 2 (C) of the Commercial Courts
Act, then it is to be seen that, whether said loan transaction is of
commercial nature.
Plaintiff has not disclosed nature of business of
defendants. Nowhere plaintiff pleaded as to for what purpose and
for which business, defendants used said money. Plaintiff made
general statement as,
business requirement of defendants.
This being Commercial Suit, requires specific and
precise pleading. Plaintiff cannot make vague statements of
general nature.
In absence of requisite pleading, contention that, alleged
loan was utilized for
commercial purpose, cannot be accepted.
Conclusion :
35) For non-commercial transaction, plaintiff has preferred
Commercial Suit. As alleged transaction is not covered U / Sec. 2
(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, then, this being a Special
Commercial Court, cannot try the Suit.
36) Plaintiff has relied on following Judgments of the
Hon’ble Superior Courts :
1. Shyamlal Kumar Roy Vs Sushil Kumar Agarwal, AIR
-- 14 of 15 --
CS No.100246 / 2019
Babulal – Akshay
Judgment (Exh.36) 15 of 15
2007 SC 637, Para No. 14 to 16, 28
2. Mrudalaben Babaria Vs. Chhallani Ginning, 2019 AIR
CC1204 (BOM).
With humbleness and respect, I submit that, the facts from case in
hand, being different, the observations from cases in Supra, will
not help the plaintiff.
37) As the suit is barred by limitation and as it does not
satisfy the prerequisites of Sec, 2 of the Commercial Courts Act,
therefore, Issue No. 2, No. 3 and No. 6 are answered in the
Negative. Hence, the Suit is disposed off, by following Order :
ORDER
1. Commercial Suit No. 100246 / 2019, Babulal
Manikchand Mundra Vs Akshay J. Gupta, is dismissed,
with costs.
2. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
3. Judgment pronounced in Open Court.
4. Plaintiff be informed about his right to challenge this
Judgment and period of limitation, for the same.
5. After compliance and period of Appeal, Shirestedar and
AS to consign Record of the Suit, to Record Room.
Mumbai
Dated : 30.04.2024 (Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 – Commercial Court
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from
Android or iOS
-- 15 of 15 --