FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS Vs. SURENDRA KERDILE
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 20,2020

Fair Communication And Consultants Appellant
VERSUS
Surendra Kerdile Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VALLIAMMAL VS. SUBRAMANIAM [REFERRED TO]
BINAPANI PAUL VS. PRATIMA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J. - (1.)This appeal by Special Leave challenges a decision of the Madhya Pradesh, High Court, by which a suit for recovery of 80,000/- was decreed in appeal. The impugned judgment set aside the judgment and decree of the XIII Additional District Judge, Indore (hereafter "trial court").
(2.)The plaintiff (respondent in the present case, referred to hereafter as "Surendra") is the maternal uncle of the defendant-second appellant (hereafter referred to by his name as "Sanjay"). Sanjay is also the sole proprietor of first appellant/defendant (M/s Fair Communication & Consultants). Surendra filed a suit for claiming recovery of 1,08,000/- alleging that Sanjay and his proprietorship firm owed money lent. Surendra apparently was a resident of Nashik, but had completed his education at Indore. He was an Engineer employed at Nashik and owned some land and a flat (MIG Scheme No. 54, Indore). As Surendra wished to settle eventually in Nashik, he appointed Sanjay who used to reside in Indore as Power of Attorney and executed a deed of General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Sanjay on 30.09.1989 for that purpose. Sanjay entered into an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra ("buyer") on 30.11.1989 and received a sum of 50,000/- as earnest money. Surendra alleged that Sanjay called him to Indore on 29.01.1990 and requested that the agreement to sell ought to be executed in favour of the buyer directly and that at the time of executing the agreement, the buyer had paid 80,000/-. This amount was returned by Sanjay. Surendra also alleged that the buyer requested for cancellation of the Power of Attorney which was given to Sanjay. Sanjay requested Surendra for an advance in the sum of 80,000/- for the expansion of his business, which he was carrying on under the style of the first respondent proprietorship concern. Sanjay assured the plaintiff that he would return the amount shortly. Accordingly, 80,000/- was given by the plaintiff (Surendra) to Sanjay.
(3.)Sanjay issued three post-dated cheques for the sum of 16,500/-, 3,500/- and 60,000/- all dated 16.02.1990, drawn on the State Bank of India, Indore Branch. Before the due date, Sanjay requested the plaintiff (Surendra) not to present the cheques for collection for a few months; this request was complied with. The cheques, when presented, were returned by the banker to the plaintiff (Surendra). In these circumstances, the suit for recovery of a sum of 80,000/- (together with interest @ 12% till the date of the filing of the suit and for future interest, consequently, was instituted.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.