The Supreme Court of India ruled that civil courts cannot be used to recover money paid for fraudulent or illegal purposes, affirming that plaints disclosing an unlawful object must be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC based on the doctrine of in pari delicto.
.
The dispute relates to a money recovery suit filed by the original plaintiff (respondent) seeking recovery of money allegedly paid to the appellants for procuring loans from various banks, purportedly to cover unspecified “overhead expenses.” The appellants had filed an application for rejection of the plaint, contending that the plaint itself disclosed an illegal and fraudulent object. The trial court, however, dismissed the plea. Subsequently, the dismissal was upheld by the Telangana High Court.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s finding, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that although styled as a money suit, the plaint’s own disclosures showed that part of the money was meant to be paid to bank officials in their individual capacity as consideration for facilitating sanction of loans, an object that was “designed to achieve an unlawful object by fraudulent means.” It was submitted that the plaint also indicated that the payments were intended as kickbacks with the predetermined motive of later securing waiver of the illegally sanctioned loans. On this basis, it was contended that where the very foundation of a claim is patently illegal and fraudulent, no court could entertain the proceeding. The plaint, thus, ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
Per contra, the respondents argued that the language of the plaint indicated the money was meant for legitimate loan-processing formalities and could not be construed as being for gratifying illegal demands of bank officials. It was further argued that the appellants had fraudulently induced the original plaintiff to part with a large sum on the promise of manifold returns. Reliance was placed on Sita Ram v Radha Bai & Ors, to argue that where a transaction founded on an illegal purpose has not fructified, a suit for recovery of the money paid remains maintainable, and that rejecting the plaint would result in unjust enrichment of the appellants.
Examining the plaint, the Supreme Court found that the consideration or object of the underlying Memorandum of Understanding between the parties was “forbidden by law, immoral, opposed to public policy and would defeat the provisions of law besides being fraudulent,” rendering the agreement void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Case Name: Poosa Sri Krishna & Ors. v. Gattu Kishan Rao & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 928
Bench & Panel: Division Bench — Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Manmohan
Court: Supreme Court of India (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Appellants’ Representation: Mr. Balaji Srinivasan (AOR), Mr. Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Mr. M. Ram Mohan Reddy, Ms. Harsha Tripathi (Advocates)
Respondents’ Representation: Mr. Gopal Jha (AOR), Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Mr. Shravan Kumar Yammanur, Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Mr. Shambhunath Bhanja, Mr. Aman Shukla, Mr. S. Prasada Rao, Ms. Shambhawi Siva (Advocates)
Parties & Their Relationship
- Appellants (Original Defendants): Poosa Sri Krishna & Others, who were alleged to have taken money under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the pretext of facilitating bank loan approvals and exchanging demonetized currency notes.
- Respondents (Original Plaintiff): Gattu Kishan Rao & Another, who filed a civil money recovery suit (O.S. No. 18 of 2018) claiming return of the money handed over to the appellants after the promised services (loan sanctions) were not delivered.
- Nature of Relationship: Parties to an illegal and void contract/MoU aimed at bribing bank officials and facilitating illicit exchanges of demonetized currency.
Main Issue (In Simple Words)
Can a person go to a civil court to get their money back if they willingly paid it to someone as a bribe or for an illegal act, or should the court dismiss the lawsuit immediately without a full trial?
In-Depth Factual Background & Legal Arguments
The original plaintiff filed a money recovery suit (O.S. No. 18 of 2018) before the Additional District Judge at Godavarikhani, Telangana. The plaintiff claimed that money was paid to the appellants under an agreement for securing bank loans—specifically to cover “overhead expenses.”
The appellants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint. They argued that the plaint’s own admissions revealed the money was paid for illicit kickbacks to bank officials in their personal capacity and for illegal post-demonetization currency exchanges.
Both the Trial Court and subsequently the Telangana High Court rejected the Order VII Rule 11 application, holding that the suit was maintainable. Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Arguments
- Appellants: The plaint itself discloses an object forbidden by law, immoral, and opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A court cannot lend its machinery to enforce or settle disputes arising out of illegal transactions.
- Respondents: The money was paid for legitimate processing expenses. Relying on Sita Ram v. Radha Bai, they argued that since the main illegal purpose (securing loans) was not fulfilled, a suit for recovery remains maintainable to prevent unjust enrichment.
Legal Reasoning & Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the plain language of the plaint and concluded that the underlying MoU fell squarely under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, making it void ab initio.
Key Grounds of Illegality
- Bribery: Payments intended to satisfy bank officials in their personal capacity to obtain unauthorized loan sanctions and subsequent loan waivers.
- Illegal Currency Exchange: Procuring and exchanging demonetized currency notes for consideration, which was legally impermissible post-demonetization.
The Bench invoked the maxim In Pari Delicto Potior Est Conditio Defendentis (where both parties are equally at fault, the position of the defendant is stronger). Citing Black’s Law Dictionary and the US Supreme Court precedent in Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, the Court re-affirmed that:
- Courts must not act as mediators in disputes between wrongdoers.
- Denying judicial relief deters illegal transactions by forcing wrongdoers to bear the financial risks of their unlawful bargains.
Addressing the precedent Sita Ram v. Radha Bai, the Supreme Court clarified that the exception (allowing recovery when an illegal transaction has not been executed) did not apply here. The plaintiff had fully executed her part of the illegal act by handing over money and procuring demonetized currency. Thus, the transaction could not be treated as unexecuted.
Ratio Decidendi
Binding Principle: Where a plaint on its face discloses that the money sought to be recovered was paid for an illegal, fraudulent, or immoral purpose, the underlying contract is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The suit is barred by law under the doctrine of in pari delicto and must be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
Obiter Dicta
- Quoting G. Pankajakshi Amma v. Mathai Mathew, the Bench emphasized that courts cannot come to the aid of a party seeking recovery of unaccounted or illegal transactions: “The loss must be allowed to lie where it falls.”
- The judiciary will not lend its offices to adjudicate financial losses arising directly from intentional participation in illegal or corrupt activities.
Application & Directions Issued by the Court
- Appeal Allowed: The order of the Telangana High Court upholding the trial court’s decision was set aside.
- Plaint Rejected: The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and O.S. No. 18 of 2018 pending before the Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District, Telangana, was officially rejected.
Final Outcome & Verdict
Appeal Allowed. The suit for money recovery was held non-maintainable as barred by law. The plaint was rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without requiring the parties to undergo a full trial.