9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2012 agreement having been made, the allegation of coercion is not made out. Moreover, the Defendant himself looked for and arranged an overseas buyer, which also did not work out. These facts go to prove that there was no coercion or duress or pressure. Proceedings before the criminal court under the Negotiable Instruments Act are tested under a different yardstick than a suit under Order XXXVII - In a suit under Order XXXVII all that the Court needs to see is as to whether the Defendant has a triable defence. In the present case, the agreements themselves having been admitted and some payments under the said agreements/settlement have already been made, a mere allegation of coercion or threat is not sufficient to raise a triable defence. The suit is liable to be decreed as there is no triable defence - The suit is decreed for a sum of ₹ 1,74,00,000/- towards the principal amount. - CS (OS) 3805/2014 & I.A. 7626/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-9-2018 - PRATHIBA M. SINGH J. Plaintiff Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra and Ms. Rishika Arora, Advocates. Defendant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chhetry and Mr. Arun Francis, Advocates. Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. The pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues for a total sum of ₹ 3,24,54,000/-. The details of the said cheques are set out below: - Sl. No. Cheque No. Cheque Amount 1. 320351 Rs.25,00,000/- 2. 320352 Rs.25,00,000/- 3. 320353 Rs.25,00,000/- 4. 320354 Rs.25,00,000/- 5. 320355 Rs.25,00,000/- 6. 320356 Rs.25,00,000/- 7. 320357 Rs.25,00,000/- 8. 320358 Rs.25,00,000/- 9. 320359 Rs.25,00,000/- 10. 320360 Rs.25,00,000/- 11. 320361 Rs.25,00,000/- 12. 320362 Rs.25,00,000/- 13. 320363 Rs.24,54, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of Settlement was entered into on 23rd August, 2012 by which the Defendant, Dr. Niaz Ahmed undertakes to repay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff and agreed to repay the amounts as per the following schedule: Instalment By (date) Amount (In Rs.) First 11.09.12 50,00,000/- Second 11.01.13 50,00,000/- Third 11.04.13 40,00,000/- Fourth 11.07.13 40,00,000/- Fifth Final 11.10.13 44,00,000/- TOTAL 2,24,00,000/- 9. This Settlement agreement also provided that if the payments were not made as per schedule, interest at 18% p.a. would be liable to be paid. Out of the above five payments, the first payment for ₹ 50,00,000/- was made vide cheque bearing number 11th September 2012 which was honoured. However, the remaining amounts were not paid and remained outstanding. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ud committed on the Defendant. The Defendant is in the process of initiating legal remedies available to him for recovery of the said amounts from the Plaintiff and its associates and also for any other legal remedies available to him in law, including criminal remedies. 7. The Defendant was being constantly threatened by the Plaintiff organization with a false criminal complaint and he was being constantly pressurized to enter into a memorandum of settlement with them. It was because of this constant threat and pressure, which was being exerted by the Plaintiff organization that the Defendant out of sheer fear of being prosecuted in a false criminal case, signed the purported Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.08.2012 against his wish or free will. It is pertinent to point out that the Defendant had neither any need nor any necessity to enter into any settlement agreement with the Plaintiff as there were no debts or liabilities payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The document (Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.08.2012) was clearly a void document as per Section 10 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act as it was executed under extreme coercion, misrepresentation, duress and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only). In other words, the Plaintiffs own stand is contradictory and inconsistent, as on the one hand, in the reply to the legal notice the Plaintiff contends/alleges that the liability is a joint and several liability of the Defendant and other directors, whereas, on the other hand, in the plaint filed in the present suit the Plaintiff contends/alleges that the liability is that of the Defendant alone. Therefore, there is clear inconsistency and contradiction in the Plaintiffs stand. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed on this count alone and also for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is baseless and misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The defendant is therefore entitled to an unconditional leave to contest and defend the suit. 10. That the present plaint is liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff has deliberately concealed material facts from this Hon ble Court and has narrated distorted facts so as to project an incorrect picture to this Hon ble Court. It is therefore necessary to put the records straight so that the entire facts can be appreciated in the correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oscinece Pvt. Ltd. j. In the meanwhile, because of the tremendous and constant pressure, the Defendant was once again forced to enter into a second Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 31.03.2011, whereby the Defendant was compelled to issue 10 cheques (PDCs) for the value of ₹ 2,24,54,000/- as a replacement of the previous cheques. Again, these cheques were issued as a mode of security deposit so as to facilitate a buyout of the investment of the Plaintiff. Once again, these cheques were not towards the discharge of any debt or a liability, either in whole or in part., Moreover, even this MoU was without any consideration and as such the MoU itself was not a valid document in law. n. That upon receipt of the summons from the court, the Defendant, who at that time was 73 years old panicked and under pressure and fear of being prosecuted in a false criminal case, signed a Memorandum of Settlement dated 23.08.2012 and further paid a sum. of ₹ 50. Lacs (Fifty lakhs Only). It is submitted that this Memorandum of Settlement was signed under extreme coercion, duress and misrepresentation and was clearly without the Defendant's free will. In any case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 11 years ago i.e. on 29th October, 2007. Thereafter, the two MOUs have been executed which are of 12th April, 2010 and 23rd August, 2012. The transaction has been a long duration transaction and not an overnight transaction. The stand of the Defendant that there was any threat is belied by the fact that these agreements span over seven to eight years. Further the fact that some payments under the 2010 agreement as also under the 2012 agreement having been made, the allegation of coercion is not made out. Moreover, the Defendant himself looked for and arranged an overseas buyer, which also did not work out. These facts go to prove that there was no coercion or duress or pressure. 15. Proceedings before the criminal court under the Negotiable Instruments Act are tested under a different yardstick than a suit under Order XXXVII. In a suit under Order XXXVII all that the Court needs to see as per the settled law in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 passed by the Supreme Court is as to whether the Defendant has a triable defence. In the present case, the agreements themselves having been admitted and some payments under the said agreements/settle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
