M/S FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS & ANR. versus SURENDRA KERDILE

M/S FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS & ANR. versus SURENDRA KERDILE

The High Court rightly allowed a purely formal consequential amendment and relied on the agreement admitted in cross-examination to conclude the plaintiff had sufficient funds to have lent Rs.80,000; appellants failed to prove any benami transaction (the onus being on them) and the Benami Act did not bar the plaintiff's suit for recovery against the defendants, so the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: M/S FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS & ANR.; Defendant/second Appellant: Sanjay; Plaintiff/respondent: Surendra Kerdile
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Special Leave / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (impugned Judgment Dated 13.03.2008 in F.a. No. 280 of 1995)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; impugned High Court judgment and decree upheld
Legal Topics
Benami Transactions, Admissibility of Documents (photocopy), Amendment of Pleadings, Burden of Proof of Benami, Recovery of Money Decree
Property Law Civil Procedure Benami Transactions (prohibition) Act Benami Transactions Admissibility of Documents (photocopy) Amendment of Pleadings Burden of Proof of Benami Recovery of Money Decree

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS & ANR.

Defendant/appellant

Sanjay

Defendant/second Appellant

Surendra Kerdile

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Special Leave / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (impugned Judgment Dated 13.03.2008 in F.a. No. 280 of 1995)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court could rely on an agreement dated 03.07.1989 showing consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- though a later document showed Rs.1,30,000/-
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff could be allowed consequential amendment to plead sufficient funds to have lent Rs.80,000/-
  3. 3 Whether the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act barred the plaintiff's plea regarding real consideration or otherwise affected the suit

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court rightly allowed a purely formal consequential amendment and relied on the agreement admitted in cross-examination to conclude the plaintiff had sufficient funds to have lent Rs.80,000; appellants failed to prove any benami transaction (the onus being on them) and the Benami Act did not bar the plaintiff's suit for recovery against the defendants, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; impugned High Court judgment and decree upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without order on costs.
  • Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court directing the respondents to pay Rs.80,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. 16/02/1990 with a period of two months, failing which respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @12% per annum; respondents to pay costs throughout remains in effect.