LLOYDS FINANCE LTD. Vs. EMTEX INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN Inter -Corporate Deposit in the amount of Rs. 2 crores was admittedly placed by the petitioner with the respondent by a cheque drawn by the petitioner. On 24 -11 -1996 the respondent requested the petitioner to disburse the Inter -Corporate Loan in the amount of Rs. 2 crores. It has been stated in the company petition that in pursuance of the request, the petitioner under cover of a letter dated 25 -11 -1996 disbursed the amount of Rs. 2 crores for a period of 24 months repayable in full in one lump sum on 23 -11 -1998. Exh. B to the company petition which is a letter dated 25 -11 -1996 provides for the payment of interest at the rate of 28 per cent per annum payable quarterly. The amount of Rs. 2 crores was admittedly disbursed and again, it is common ground that the principal amount was repaid on 8 -12 -1998, Immediately thereafter, on 10 -12 -1998, a debit note claiming interest at, the rate of 28 per cent per annum compounded quarterly was issued to the petitioner by the respondent by which interest in the amount of Rs. 83,81,955 was claimed as due and payable. There has been no reply, at all to the debit note which was raised and addressed by the petitioner.

(2.) ON 7 -7 -1999 a reminder was addressed by the petitioner in respect of the non -payment of the amount of interest which had been claimed in the debit note dated 10 -12 -1998.

(3.) IN reply thereto, the respondent for the first time in a letter dated 19 -7 -1999 stated that the loan of Rs. 200 lakhs was extended without any specification as to the payment of interest. In other words, the respondent did not claim that no interest was payable on the loan at all but that the loan had been advanced under agreed terms which did not contain a specification as to the payment of interest. According to the respondent this was a measure of compensation for what was allegedly, an exorbitant rate of interest charged by the petitioner on a separate lease transaction. On 5 -11 -1999 the petitioner rebutted the contention of the respondent to the effect that no specification of interest had been made.