Confirmation Of Accounts Signed By Debtor Sufficient To Sustain Summary Suit Under Order 37 CPC: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a confirmation of accounts signed by a debtor acknowledging a loan transaction and the applicable interest terms constitutes a written contract and can form the basis of a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by a chartered accountant challenging a decree passed in favour of a company for recovery of over ₹72 lakh arising from a loan transaction.
The dispute arose after Zavenir Developers claimed that it had advanced a friendly loan of ₹50 lakh to the Appellant via two bank transactions and carried interest at 15% per annum with quarterly compounding.
The company relied on a confirmation of accounts letter dated April 1, 2019, signed by both parties, which recorded the loan transactions, interest liability and the outstanding balance.
Appellant disputed the claim and asserted that the transfers represented repayment of a cash amount allegedly arranged by him for the company. He further contended that the confirmation of accounts could not be treated as a written contract and therefore could not sustain a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that the confirmation of accounts specifically recorded the transfer of ₹50 lakh, the agreed rate of interest and the outstanding amount due. The document also bore the signatures of both parties, with the defendant expressly confirming the contents.
“This Letter is signed by the Plaintiff as well as by the Defendant, who has written “we confirm the above”. This Confirmation Letter not only amounts to the written Agreement/Contract wherein the terms of the loan and the payment due have been reflected, but is also admitted and confirmed by the Defendant,” the Court observed.
It also rejected Appellant's contention that he had signed the letter on the assurance that it would not be acted upon, observing that such a defence was particularly “weak” coming from a chartered accountant.
It further found that the defendant's plea that the bank transfers were merely repayment of a cash advance was unsupported by material evidence and did not raise any triable issue warranting leave to defend.
Accordingly, the Court sustained the summary decree in favour of the company.
Appearance: Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia and Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Advs. for Appellant; Ms. Sonakshi Chaturvedi, Adv for Respondents
Case Title: Sandeep Goel v. Zavenir Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Connected Matter
Case no.: RFA 361/2024