Naresh
Bhutani and ANR Vs. M/S. A. G. Chit Fund And Finance Co. [2009] INSC 1584 (15
September 2009)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5527 OF
2002 Naresh Bhutani & Anr. ...Appellants VERSUS M/s.A.G.Chit Fund &
Finance Co. & Anr. ...Respondents ORDER This appeal is directed against a
judgment and order dated 27th of August, 2001 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in CR No.1095 of 2000 and CM Nos. 2736 & 2828 of 2000 by which
the High Court had affirmed the order of the Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi
dated 17th of February, 1998 by which the Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi had
declined to grant leave to defend to the appellant and decreed the suit of the
respondent against him under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also
directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.69,225/- with interest @ 18% per
annum from 17th of December, 1993 till the date of realisation and the cost of
the suit.
2 We have
heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order of
the High Court as well as the order of the Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi.
Before the Commercial Civil Judge and also before the High Court,the only
question that was raised by the appellant was that since the respondent which
is a Chit Fund Company was not registered under the Madras Chit Funds, the suit
filed by the respondent under Order 37 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
was not maintainable.The High Court as well as the Commercial Civil Judge,
Delhi, in our view, have rightly pointed out that even if the respondent was
not registered,it cannot take out the suit from the purview of Order 37 Rule 1
of the CPC. Apart from that the allegations of non registration was denied by
the respondent and in fact they asserted that the chit fund was duly
registered. Since the Commercial Civil Judge and the High Court concurrently
held that the question that was raised for permitting the appellant to defend
the suit cannot be a ground for which leave can be granted to the appellant.
Before us also, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to 3
satisfy that the findings of the courts below were perverse or arbitrary.
That
being the position, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by
the courts below and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
The
learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits, on instruction, that the
rate of interest granted by the courts below was 18% and prays that the
interest rate be reduced. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we modify the order of the courts below only to the extent that
the rate of interest should be 12% instead of 18%. Subject to this
modification, the appeal stands dismissed.
There
will be no order as to costs.
...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
............................J. [Aftab Alam]
..............................J.
New Delhi;
Back
