The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court decree directing Chartered Accountant Sandeep Goel to pay more than ₹72 lakh to Zavenir Developers Pvt. Ltd. in a loan recovery dispute. While dismissing Goel’s appeal, the Court partly allowed the developer’s cross-appeal and awarded future interest at 9% per annum until payment is made.
Background of the Case
According to the company, it had advanced ₹50 lakh to Goel in September 2018 through two bank transfers after he sought financial assistance for business and property-related investments. The company claimed that the amount was repayable with interest at 15% per annum compounded quarterly.
When the amount was allegedly not repaid, Zavenir Developers filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code seeking recovery of the principal sum along with accrued interest.
Goel disputed the claim and argued that the bank transfers were not a loan. He contended that he had earlier arranged ₹50 lakh in cash for the company and that the transferred amount merely represented repayment of that arrangement. He relied on WhatsApp conversations to support his defence.
Court’s Observations
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the record and noted that the transfer of ₹50 lakh through banking channels was not disputed. The Court also attached significance to a “Confirmation of Accounts” dated April 1, 2019, signed by both parties. The document recorded the loan transactions, the agreed interest rate, and the outstanding balance.
The Court observed that the signed confirmation was more than a mere accounting record and amounted to a written acknowledgment of liability.
“The 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.
Rejecting the defence based on an alleged cash arrangement, the Court found that no credible material had been produced to establish the source or existence of such funds.
The bench remarked that the defence was “nothing but a sham and moonshine” and did not raise any genuine triable issue requiring a full trial.
The developer separately challenged the trial court’s decision to award pendente lite interest at 9% instead of the claimed contractual rate of 15% and to deny future interest altogether.
The High Court held that courts possess discretion under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code while awarding pendente lite and post-decree interest. It found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision fixing pendente lite interest at 9% per annum.
However, the Court noted that no reasons had been given for refusing future interest and held that the company was entitled to such relief.
The High Court dismissed Sandeep Goel’s appeal challenging the recovery decree and affirmed the finding that Zavenir Developers was entitled to recover ₹72,13,890.
The Court partly allowed the company’s appeal and modified the decree by directing that future interest at 9% per annum would also be payable from the date of the decree until the amount is fully paid.
Case Details:
Case Title: Zavenir Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Sandeep Goel & Connected Appeal
Case Number: RFA 361/2024 & RFA 718/2024
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: June 5, 2026
