BHARAT NIDHI LIMITED Vs. SHITAL PRASAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of this application of the defendant made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of his written statement. The proposed amended written statement has also been filed along with this application.

(2.) The plaintiff Bharat Nidhi Limited, a Public Limited Company, has brought the suit against the defendant Shital Prasad Jain for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,85,557 35 on the basis of a promissory note dated 23-12-1974 and the receipt dated 24-12-1974 evidencing the loan amount of Rs 2,00,000.00 . It was vide letter dated 14-12-1974 that the defendant requested the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company for advancing him a loan of Rs. 2,00,000.00 on the company's usual rate of interest and the amount was to be repaid gradully in instalments over a period of about 1 years and the defendant also offered in the said letter to give a demand promissory note for the said amount. The aforesaid loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff company by passing a resolution in the meeting of the Board of Directors of 21-12-1974 and this loan was to repaid with interest at the rate of 17% per annum with monthly rest.

(3.) In paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant narrated the long drawn out bistory since 1942 of his association with Dalmia Jain Group of Industries, Sahu Jain Group of Industries and how his relations with Shanti Prasad Jain and his son Ashok Jain were very intimate and they had been helping each other in a large number of financial and commercial enterprises. The defendant had also taken up the plea in that very paragraph regarding his non-liability to pay the amount under the aforesaid promissory note alleging that the same was without consideration and that the payment thereunder to him was as per the written and oral understanding and agreement given to him by Shanti Prasad Jain and his son Ashok Kumar Jain who were, at the relevant time, respectively the Group Master of Sahu Jain Group and Chairman of the plaintiff company, and who had assured him in those capacities as also in their personal capacities that the amount under the promissory note was not to be repaid by the defendant in view of the valuable services/contributions by him to the plaintiff from time to time, particulary in the context of transfer of its banking business in India to the Punjab National Bank Limited and streamlining the affairs of the plaintiff thereafter then in a large investment in finance company. Paragraph no. 5 was contained in pages 213 46 of the written statement and after hearing the parties the entire paragraph no. 5 of the written statement was struck off by D.R. Khanna J. vide order dated 6-11-1981 under Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding the same to be entirely irrelevant, vaxatious and unnecessary for the trial of the suit and the clam set up by the plaintiff observing further that he did not see in what manner any understanding arrived at between the defendant on the one hand and Shanti Prasad Jain and his son Ashok Kumar Jam on the other, could defeat the rights of the plaintiff-company which was a corporate body as there was no resolution alleged under which the plaintiff-company agreed not to enforce the promissory note or realise the amount of the loan.