Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th December, 2022
SH UMESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.P. Gairola, Advocate
Through: None.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed seeking prayer for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020 passed by Ld. ADJ, North-West District, Rohini Courts Delhi in suit bearing No. 671/17.
2. The case on behalf of the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the suit, is that the appellant was engaged in the business of transportation under the name and style of M/s Vishal Golden. The father of the respondent herein was running a chit fund. The appellant was a member in chit fund of the respondent and made payments for the said purpose. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent demanded Rs. 3 Lakhs from the appellant herein on 23.06.2016 for treatment of his wife for a short period. The respondent assured that he will return the same after taking next chit in his name. Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant gave a friendly loan of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the respondent. However, the respondent discontinued the chit on 23.04.2016.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he had deposited Rs. 2,05,675/- from 26.06.2015 to 23.04.2016 with the defendant as his share in the chit. Thus, an amount of Rs. 5,05,675/- was due and payable by the respondent as on 23.04.2016. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant demanded the said amount from the respondent, however, the appellant was beaten by the respondent and his brothers. Hence, appellant informed the police and MLC of the appellant was prepared by the doctors. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that investigation officer (I.O) recorded the statement of the appellant as well as the respondent herein, in which the respondent admitted that he had to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs to the appellant.
4. It is the case of the appellant that on his request, respondent gave a cheque in second week of April 2017 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/to the appellant and the same was encashed on 03.05.2017. Thereafter, appellant sent a legal notice dated 26.07.2017 to the respondent, but the respondent did not make payment to the appellant. It is in these circumstances that the appellant filed a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 6, 18,377/- against the respondent herein.
5. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of respondent before the Trial Court and the respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.12.2017.
6. By the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2020, the learned ADJ, North-West District, Rohini Courts Delhi dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Trial Court has held in categorical terms that the plaintiff did not file any documentary proof with respect to any amount having been given to the defendant. Even otherwise, the contract between the appellant and the respondent was not permissible in law and is clearly prohibited by the Chit Funds Act, 1982.
7. Reference may be made to Section 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 which clearly stipulates that no chit shall be commenced or conducted without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government within whose jurisdiction the chit is to be commenced or conducted. Section 4 of the said Act is reproduced as below:
8. Reference may also be made to Section 5 of the said Act which stipulates that no person shall issue or cause to be issued any notice, circular, prospectus, proposal or other document inviting the public to subscribe for tickets in any chit, without the previous sanction required under Section 4 of the Act. Section 5 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 is reproduced as below:
9. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the business of chit fund cannot be run unless the firm or company is registered with the State Government. During the course of hearing, categorical statement was made by ld. Counsel for appellant that the chit fund business of the respondent was not registered as per law. Thus, it is clear that the transaction between the appellant and the respondent was prohibited by law. Thus, any contract in this regard entered between the appellant and the respondent was void ab initio and the appellant was not entitled to recover the amount as alleged to have been given towards the chit fund.
10. The learned Trial Court has also rejected the claim of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- which he allegedly gave to respondent for treatment of his wife. The said claim has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court, since there is a clear finding that the appellant has not placed on record any document to show that any such amount had been given by the appellant to the respondent. Even the complaint to the police, legal notice and the statements of the appellant and respondent to the police, were not proved as per law. There is a clear finding by the learned Trial court that even otherwise the said documents were not sufficient to prove the case of the appellant herein.
11. The appellant has also not been able to show any satisfactory cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Resultantly, CM NO. 35468/2022 for condoning delay of 455 days in filing the present appeal is dismissed.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs. MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 15, 2022