B. VINAYAK NILESH Vs. RAKESH HARLALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs have come forward with this Commercial Division Suit praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the plaintiff, as could be unfolded from the plaint as well as the amended plaint are as under:- The plaintiff states that they are in the business of construction for the last few decades and subsequently they have also entered into the field of automotive component business for the past few years prior to the filing of the plaint. According to plaintiff, for the purpose of meeting the urgent business expenditure, they were in need of funds and on 16/4/2012, one of the common friend introduced the plaintiffs to the first defendant, who is a money lender. The plaintiffs requested the first defendant to extend them financial assistance and after deliberations, the first defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs Only) by way of cheque from the bank account of the first defendant as well as third parties to the transaction namely the defendants 4, 5 and 8. On receipt of such amount, the plaintiffs executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 3 which was registered as document No. 885 of 2012 in Book No.I on the file of Sub-Registrar, Theyagaraya Nagar. Further the plaintiffs also deposited the original title deeds of the property bearing Flat No.4A, Fourth Floor, New Door No.21, Raja Street, T. Nagar, which is described as one of the properties in the plaint schedule. It is the specific plea of the plaintiffs that in the mortgage deed dtd. 16/4/2012 there was no reference made to the quantum of amount paid by the defendants 1 to 3, 4, 5 and 8, but it was merely stated that the amount is being paid to the first plaintiff. However, as per the various cheques issued by the defendants 1 to 3, 4, 5 and 8, out of the total sum of Rs.1,50,00,000.00, the defendants 1 to 3 have paid Rs.82,00,000.00 and the balance amount to the tune of Rs.68,00,000.00 was paid by the defendants 4, 5 and 8 with whom the plaintiffs have no contact or any other contact. Thus, the plaintiffs do not disown their liability to repay the amount of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 they borrowed from the first defendant and they have also continued to repay the amount borrowed by them with interest to the defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. According to the plaintiffs, out of the total loan amount of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 received from the first defendant, the sum of Rs.68,00,000.00 was paid by the defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 8 at the insistence of the defendants 1 to 3 and that was the reason why there was no reference made in the mortgage deed dtd. 16/4/2012 about the contribution of the amount paid by the defendants 4, 5 and 8.

(3.) The plaintiffs further alleged in the plaint that the defendants 1 to 3 had capitalised the situation in which they were placed and had levied interest at the rate of 27% per annum compounded quarterly. Such a percentage of interest, according to the plaintiffs, cannot be levied as it is against law. Notwithstanding the usurious rate at which the amount was paid, the plaintiffs diligently paid the principal amount with interest from 16/4/2012 till 29/10/2020. Thus, for the amount of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 borrowed by the plaintiffs, they have repaid a total sum of Rs.3,87,21,482.00 (Rupees Three Crors Eighty Seven Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Two Only) and tha last payment was made to the tune of Rs.74,69,232.00 on 29/10/2020. In order to fortify this submission, the plaintiffs also filed the audited statement of account, which would disclose that the entire payments were made by the plaintiffs only through bank transaction and none of the transaction was made through cash.