Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
C IVIL APPEAL NO.5527 OF 2002
Naresh Bhutani & Anr. …Appellants
VERSUS
M/s.A.G.Chit Fund & Finance Co. & Anr. …Respondents
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
th
dated 27 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
th
Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi dated 17 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
th
Rs.69,225/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 17 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 can not 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]
New Delhi; …………………………J.
September 15, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]