DILIP KUMAR RUNGTA Vs. KLG TRADEFIN PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid three matters are taken up together as, the legal points involved therein are identical and similar and the answer to it shall decide the fate of the aforesaid appeals.

(2.) The basic facts involved in the aforesaid appeals are more or less similar except the quantum of money involved therein and therefore, the facts narrated in APOT 106 of 2022 are adumbrated in the instant judgment. The facts emerged from the pleading filed before the Single Bench are that the respondent company is engaged in the business of financial intermediation and activities apart from the other trading activities. In or around the month of February, 2015 the appellant approach the respondent as it was a need of funds and after the extensive discussion, the negotiations held between the parties wherein the respondent agreed to advance a sum of Rs.2,87,00,000.00 (Rupees two crores and eighty seven lakhs) to the appellant payable with interest at 12 per cent per annum upon maturity. It was further renegotiated and ultimately the rate of interest was reduced to 7 per cent per annum on and from 1/4/2020. It is further stated that the interest would be payable on a monthly basis and in the event of default, the respondent is entitled to recall the loan and the entire balance amount would be payable at one go. The aforesaid amount was debited from the account of the respondent on diverse dates and credited into the back account of the appellant. The pleading further revealed that the part payment to the tune of Rs.2,05,00,000.00 (Rupees two crore and five lakhs) was made between 20/3/2015 and 23/9/2016. The interest was also paid on diverse dates between 17/3/2016 and 10/3/2021 after deduction of TDS for the respective financial years which would be evident from the copy of the Form 26AS uploaded on the official website of the Income Tax Department. Since there was a default in payment of interest and the principal amount due after part payment, the respondent called upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.82,00,000.00 (Rupees eighty-two lakhs) being the balance amount together with an interest to the tune of Rs.9,61,450.00 (Rupees nine lakhs sixty-one thousand four hundred and fifty) upon issuing a letter dtd. 23/12/2021 payable within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The said letter was duly replied by the appellant on 7/1/2022 admitting the receipt of the said amount but denied the liability taking a sham defence and denying the existence of privity of contract. Thereafter the lis was filed for recovery of the said sum of Rs.91, 61,450.00 (Rupees ninety-one lakhs sixty-one thousand four hundred and fifty) together with an interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of decree till realization. It is pertinent to note that the said suit was filed without exhausting the remedy of pre- institution mediation contemplated under Sec. 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint relates to the dispensation of the aforesaid recourses. An application was taken out in the said suit seeking for an order of injunction restraining the appellant from dealing and/or encumbering and/or alienating its assets and also to furnish the security to the tune of Rs.91, 61,450.00 (Rupees ninety-one lakhs sixty- one thousand four hundred and fifty). The said application was contested by the appellant by filing the affidavit in opposition taking a plea that one Anil Kumar Chaudhary being known to the deponent of the said affidavit assured in arranging and facilitating the long term unsecured loan for the business requirement of the appellant and pursuant to the several discussions having held the entire amount was arranged by him and it was agreed that the said amount would be repaid within 15 years from the date of its disbursement and therefore, there is no privity of contract in relation to the said loan between the appellant and the respondent.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings exchanged by the parties the application filed by the respondent was disposed of restraining the appellant from dealing with, disposing of and/or in any manner, encumbering the fixed and other assets of the appellant till the disposal of the suit. The appellant has filed the instant appeals against the similar orders taking common grounds of attack.