S K DORAISAMY Vs. N ELANGOVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed for direction, directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally the sum of Rs.18,92,000 together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for costs.

(2.) THE plaint averments are as follows: THE defendants approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.1 1,00,000 on 22.11.1993 in order to expand their Garment Factory and garment sales and also to buy certain machinery for their factory at No. 16, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Teynampet,Chennai-600 018. THE defendants in evidence of the loan received from the plaintiff jointly and severally executed a demand promissory note for Rs.1 1,00,000 on 22.1.1993 in favour of the plaintiff promissing to pay the said sum on demand to the plaintiff or their order with interest at 24% per annum. THEy also executed a loan agreement dated 22.11.93 promising to pay the said sum within a period of six months from the said date, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to collect penal interest at the rate of 36% per annum. But the plaintiff at present restricts his claim to collect 24% per annum on the principal amount. THE defendants failed and neglected to repay the principal amount and also the interest to the plaintiff within the time. After several oral d emands by the plaintiff, the defendant (3rd defendant) accepting the joint liability issued a cheque dated 10.2.1995 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs towards interest and part payment of the debt. But the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds in the Defendant's Bank Account. THErefore, the plaintiff filed C.C.No.6239 of 1995 in the IX Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate Court to prosecute the defendants(3rd defendant) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and th e same is pending. THE plaintiff has also filed C.C.No. of 1995 (no. not known to the plaintiff) in the Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate Court seeking direction to direct the Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, Egmore to take steps for recovery of the said amount due to the plaintiff. THE Crime Branch has registered the Crime No.45 of 1995 in the first week of January, 1995 and the same is pending. Despite the demands, the defendants did not repay the amount with interest. Now a sum of Rs.1 1,00,000 towards principal as on 21.11.1996 and a sum of Rs.7,92,000 towards interest at 24% per annum from 22.11.1993 to the date of plaint, totalling Rs.18,92,000 is due and payable jointly and severally by the defendants. Hence the Suit.

(3.) ADDED further, learned counsel that the plaintiff has not examined himself or any other witnesses and has not adduced any documentary evidence; that the plaintiff could not examine himself since he is in foreign country that in the instant case the defendants have entered appearance and participated in the proceedings by filing a written statement also; that the defendant had categorically admitted in the written statement that they received Rs.6 lakhs on 22.11.93, the date of the pro-note and they have further admitted the execution of the promissory note on the date of the receipt of the payment but they have added that the plaintiff paid only Rs. 6 lakhs on 22.11.1993 promising to pay the balance in a fortnight and has failed to do so, that in view of their categoric admission in the written statement that they received Rs.6 lakhs on 22.11.93 the date of the promissory note as the part of the consideration found therein, a decree for this admitted sum of Rs. 6 Iakhs with interest has to be passed; that it is true that the plaintiff has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence but in view of the above admission made by the defendants acknowledging their liability to the extent of Rs.6 lakhs, a decree could be granted in favour of the plaintiff to that extent; that the defendants having admitted their liability to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs cannot now be permitted to say that they are not liable to pay the said sum with interest since the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence in this regard; that the plaintiff is satisfied if a decree is passed to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs with interest from 22.11.93 and a decree has to be got in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.