SUDHIR JAIN Vs. R. P. MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,44,00,000.00 along with interest against the defendant.

(2.) 'Law: in its nature the noblest and most beneficial to mankind, in its abuse and debasement the most sordid and the most pernicious' observed Henry St. John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke in Letters on the Study and Use of History (1739). This adage of 1739, holds ground even today and is manifested in its full majesty in this case. The plaintiff prompted by his goodness, agreed to give a loan of Rs.2.4 crores to the defendant, a friend and a person known to him, inter alia on the following terms as reflected in his e-mail dated December 28, 2006:-

(3.) Upon acceptance of the above terms by the defendant, vide an email on the same date viz. December 28, 2006, a sum of Rs.2,40,00,000.00 was credited to the account of the defendant in Axis Bank, New Delhi through a Bank Draft issued by the Union Bank, Gurgaon on the directions of the plaintiff. As per the terms, the repayment of the entire loan amount was to be made by 1/4/2007. However, the last payment was made by the defendant on 1/3/2007 and a total amount of Rs.88,00,000.00 was repaid. The defendant also defaulted in executing a Mortgage Deed in respect of Karnal property in favour of plaintiff. Further, though the defendant had represented himself to be the owner of property No. 32E, Sainik Farms, New Delhi but the defendant was unable to sell the property on account of some defect in the title deeds. The plaintiff has claimed that the defects in title deeds imply that the defendant had wrongly represented himself to be the owner of Sainik Farms property.