In Brief
Surendra lent ₹80,000 to his nephew Sanjay for business expansion; Sanjay issued post-dated cheques but allegedly denied repaying the loan. The trial court dismissed the suit, believing the amount was part of property sale proceeds. The High Court reversed, finding Surendra had loaned the money and noting the cheques and receipts proved the transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, rejecting arguments that Benami Act bars the suit. The Court held a money recovery suit is not barred by Benami Act unless the property transaction itself is proved benami by the defendant—which did not occur here. The appeal was dismissed and the ₹80,000 recovery decree upheld."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.