Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 707 - HC - Indian LawsIssues Involved: 1. Application for summary judgment and decree. 2. Application for leave to defend the suit. 3. Recovery of the amount along with interest. 4. Dishonor of cheques. 5. Initiation of criminal proceedings. 6. Maintainability of the suit. 7. Alleged suppression of material facts. 8. Jurisdiction of the Court. 9. Alleged withholding of original title deeds. 10. Claim for damages by the defendant. Summary: 1. Application for Summary Judgment and Decree: The plaintiff filed an application (G.A. No. 6 of 2022) for summary judgment and decree against the defendant for Rs. 7,23,63,548/- along with interest. The defendant filed an application (G.A. No. 7 of 2022) for leave to defend the suit unconditionally (C.S. No. 116 of 2017). 2. Application for Leave to Defend the Suit: The defendant sought unconditional leave to defend the suit, arguing that the suit is not maintainable due to suppression of material facts and is barred under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendant also claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction. 3. Recovery of Amount Along with Interest: The plaintiff advanced Rs. 4,05,00,000/- to the defendant for the purchase of immovable properties. The defendant acknowledged the amount but later informed the plaintiff that they could not convey the properties and agreed to return the amount. The defendant issued cheques totaling Rs. 7,23,63,548/- (including interest), which were dishonored. 4. Dishonor of Cheques: The plaintiff presented the cheques for encashment, but they were dishonored due to "insufficient funds." The defendant issued multiple cheques, all of which were dishonored. 5. Initiation of Criminal Proceedings: The plaintiff initiated proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and filed an application u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1971, for criminal proceedings against the defendant. The High Court directed the directors of the defendant to deposit Rs. 3 crores, which was done. 6. Maintainability of the Suit: The defendant argued that the suit is commercial in nature and this Court has no jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the defendant required financial assistance, and the plaintiff provided interest-free financial accommodation, making the point of maintainability irrelevant. 7. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts: The defendant claimed that the plaintiff suppressed material facts, making the suit bad for waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. 8. Jurisdiction of the Court: The defendant argued that the suit is barred under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and this Court has no jurisdiction. The Court found this argument unsubstantiated. 9. Alleged Withholding of Original Title Deeds: The defendant alleged that the plaintiff withheld the original title deeds, causing them loss and damages. The Court noted that the defendant did not file any counterclaim or separate suit for the return of documents. 10. Claim for Damages by the Defendant: The defendant claimed to have suffered loss and damages due to the plaintiff withholding the original title deeds but did not substantiate this claim with any evidence or separate suit. Conclusion: The Court found that the defendant had no substantial defense and the defense set up was illusory and sham. The plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 7,23,63,548/- along with further interest at 12% per annum from 13th April 2017 on Rs. 4,05,00,000/- till realization. G.A. No. 6 of 2022 was allowed, G.A. No. 7 of 2022 was dismissed, and C.S. No. 116 of 2017 was disposed of accordingly.
|