UNIVERSAL FINANCE TRADERS LTD Vs. LUNAR DIAMONDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Smt.Sudesh Madhok, the wife of respondent No.5 and mother of respondent No.6 had filed a suit praying for a decree in sum of Rs. 1,31,07,607.00 alleging that respondent No.1, M/s.Lunar Diamonds Ltd., respondents No.2, M/s.Lunar Gold International Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.3, M/s.Lunar Finance Ltd., respondent No.4, M/s.Sunrise Securities Ltd. and the appellant were Public Limited Companies. In February 1996, respondent No.2 requested her to discount a Bill of Exchange in sum of Rs. 1,03,84,000/- drawn on respondent No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and she agreed. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 executed a demand promissory note in her favour in sum of Rs. 1,03,84,000/- and respondent No.3 executed a deed of guarantee in her favour. Additionally, respondent No.3 executed and delivered a pledge agreement as also an irrevocable power of attorney in her favour pledging shares worth Rs. 4 lakhs of respondent No.4 to her. Paying Rs. 25 lakhs to her, respondent No.1 issued two cheques in sum of Rs. 78,84,000/- and Rs. 2,75,971/-, the latter towards interest to liquidate the liability in June 1997. The cheques were dishonoured. She pleaded that Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg was later on secured by way of a mortgage for repayment of debt to her by the appellant and respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Stating that Rs. 81,59,871/- towards the cheque amounts was due to her and that she had suffered loss in sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and pre-suit interest @18% per annum total Rs. 39,47,636/-, decree claimed by her was in sum of Rs. 1,31,07,607/- with interest @18% per annum till amount was received.

(2.) A common written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 and the appellant under the signatures of Shri S.L.Maloo, who has not disclosed in the written statement as to in what capacity he was signing and verifying the pleadings and filing the same on behalf of the defendants. But admittedly was a director in all the companies. In a rolled over pleadings in the written statement, which have to be treated as an admission of the claim in the suit, it stands pleaded that in complete satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiff Flat No.10H, Vandana Building, Tolstoy Marg was sold to the plaintiff. In other words, the plea of the plaintiff that the flat was mortgaged to her was denied and the stand taken was that the flat was sold to her.

(3.) In the replication filed, Smt.Sudesh Madhok reiterated the stand taken in the plaint.