Fair Communication & Consultants v. Surendra Kerdile

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersCivil Appeal No. 106 of 2010 2020 TaxPub(DT) 0709 (SC) : (2020) 269 TAXMAN 0453 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INDIRA BANERJEE & S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ. Fair Communication & Consultants v. Surendra Kerdile Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2010 20 January, 2020 JUDGMENT *S. Ravindra Bhat, J.* This appeal by Special Leave challenges a decision of the Madhya Pradesh, High Court, by which a suit for recovery of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 30-9-1989 for that purpose. Sanjay entered into an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra ('buyer') on 30-11-1989 an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra ('buyer') on 30-11-1989 and received a sum of Rs. 50,000 as earnest money. Surendra alleged that Sanjay called him to Indore on 29-1-1990 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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, Rs. 80,000 was given by the plaintiff (Surendra) to Sanjay. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersCivil Appeal No. 106 of 2010
2020 TaxPub(DT) 0709 (SC) : (2020) 269 TAXMAN 0453

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INDIRA BANERJEE & S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.

Fair Communication & Consultants v. Surendra Kerdile

Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2010

20 January, 2020

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

This appeal by Special Leave challenges a decision of the Madhya Pradesh, High Court, by which a suit for recovery of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 30-9-1989 for that purpose. Sanjay entered into an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra ('buyer') on 30-11-1989 an agreement to sell the property to one Niranjan Singh Nagra ('buyer') on 30-11-1989 and received a sum of Rs. 50,000 as earnest money. Surendra alleged that Sanjay called him to Indore on 29-1-1990 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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, Rs. 80,000 was given by the plaintiff (Surendra) to Sanjay.