9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal complaint had been filed, counsel for the appellant submits that he had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He submits that he had agitated this question before the learned Single Judge of this Court and the Court granted liberty to raise the grounds before the concerned court. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant seeking leave to defend - appeal dismissed. - RFA(OS) 82/2018 & C.M.49857/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2019 - MR. G.S. SISTANI AND MS. JYOTI SINGH JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Chhetry and Mr. Shiv B. Chhetry, Advocates Respondent Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Mr. Vinayak Marwah, Mr. G.S. Patwalia and Mr. Bhubneshwar Tyagi, Advocates G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Order XLI CPC read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules. The prayer made in this appeal is to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2018 and order dated 03.10.2018 passed in a suit filed by the respondent und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the stand of the appellant that the issuance of legal notice by the respondent to the appellant would show that he was put under extreme pressure to pay, though no amount was due and payable by the appellant to the respondent. 3. Mr. Bindra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Single Judge. The appellant-defendant in the suit has failed to raise a plausible defence. The defence sought to be raised is not bonafide. It is sham and moonshine. It is further contended that the appellant was a signatory to the first agreement dated 29.10.2007, where the amount invested by the respondent to the tune of ₹ 3,24,54,000/- stands duly admitted. The appellant was also a signatory to the second agreement dated 12.04.2010, pursuant to which while acknowledging the debt, 13 post-dated cheques amounting to ₹ 3,24,54,000/- were handed over to the respondent, details of which are given below: SI. No. Cheque No. Cheque Amount 1. 320351 ₹ 25,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chq. No. Amount 30/07/2011 798300 25,00,000/- 30/07/2011 79299 25,00,000/- 30/08/2011 798302 25,00,000/- 30/08/2011 798301 25,00,000/- 30/09/2011 798307 25,00,000/- 30/09/2011 798306 25,00,000/- 30/10/2011 798308 25,00,000/- 30/10/2011 798309 25,00,000/- 30/11/2011 798310 24,00,000/- 30/11/2011 798312 54,000/- T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent further submits that though the appellant has extensively raised the defence of signing the agreements under extreme coercion, pressure, undue influence and force, and has reserved his right to take legal action against the respondent, in fact, no legal action has ever been initiated against the respondent. 9. It is also the stand of the respondent that his case is fully covered by a recent decision by the Apex Court in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited 2017 (1) SCC 568, more particularly, reliance is placed on para 17, which is reproduced hereinbelow: 17. Accordingly, the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec case [ Mechelec Engineers Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded, given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros., AIR 1965 SC 1698 : (1966) 68 Bom LR 36], as follows: 17.1. If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der coercion, pressure, undue influence and under threat of false cases being filed against the appellant; (v) The appellant had moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein liberty has been granted to the appellant to raise all these grounds at the time of hearing of the petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (vi) The defence raised by the appellant is plausible, reasonable and the appellant has every likelihood of success. Accordingly, unconditional leave should be granted and the matter be decided after evidence is led. (vii) The amounts due to the respondent have not been proved by the respondent. 12. The submissions of Mr. Bindra can be summarised as under: (i) There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. (ii) The defence raised by the appellant is sham and moonshine. (iii) The appellant has made successive acknowledgments of debt, which are evident upon reading of the four agreements dated 29.10.2007, 12.04.2010, 31.03.2011 and 23.08.2012. (iv) In support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,24,00,000/- xxx xxx xxx 11. That the parties hereto confirm that the above settlement has been arrived at by the parties out of their free will and volition and without any force, coercion, influence, inducement, etc. 16. It is relevant to note that in the preamble of this agreement, the background has been given with regard to the appellant and one Shri Arindom Ganguly, having approached the respondent, M/s. Indcap Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. for financial assistance. The preamble also reflects that this company stands amalgamated as M/s. Indcap Enterprises LLP. The preamble also reflects that a sum of ₹ 3,24,54,000/- was invested with M/s. Integrity Geo Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and an agreement dated 29.10.2007 was signed between the parties. Subsequent agreement takes note of the fact that a sum of ₹ 1 Crore stands paid leaving a balance of ₹ 2,24,54,000/- which incidentally is the suit amount. 17. We have, in the paragraphs aforegoing, referred to the earlier 3 agreements executed between the parties dated 29.10.2007, 12.04.2010 and 31.03.2011. What is relevant to notice is that consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
