Delhi District Court
Cts Management Services Pvt. Ltd vs Icici Bank Ltd on 7 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: SPECIAL JUDGE
(P.C. ACT) CBI01 (CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 06/2016
CTS Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
1026, World Trade Tower
10th Floor, DND Flyway, C1,
Sector16, NOIDA201 301.
................ Revisionist
VERSUS
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
ICICI Bank Tower
NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar,
Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
New Delhi110 003.
1A. Sh. Arun Jain
Asstt. General Manager,
ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Tower
Vabdra Kurla Complex
Mumbai - 400 051.
2. Peacock Meia Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Sandeep Chawla
24/B, Apollo Industrial Estate,
Off Mahakali Caves Road, Anderhi East
Mumbai - 400 003.
.............. Respondents
Date of Institution : 19.03.2016
Judgment Reserved on : 07.07.2017
Judgment Pronounced on : 07.07.2017
JUDGMENT:(Oral) :
(1) This revision impugns the order of Ld. Trial Court / Ld. ACMM dated 04.02.2016 dismissing the complaint of revisionist on CTS Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (RC No. 06/2016) Page No. 1 of 5 various grounds. It is averred that while deciding the issue before it, the Ld. ACMM has only referred the Indian Contract Act and the basic principles laid down in the Section 415 IPC and failed to appreciate that the entire controversy started with Credit Arrangement Letter (CAL) dated 30.09.2009 whereby the revisionist was induced to sign the performance guarantee but the revisionist was made to sign on the documents which were personal guarantee. It is further averred that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the facts that the respondent no. 1 made the first call to the revisionist for disbursement of Rs.1.45 Crore. It is averred that the relationship of revisionist and Respondent No. 1 was not older than one year and heavy clean overdraft was accorded only the guarantee of Respondent No. 2.
(2) No reply to the said revision has been filed by the respondents but the respondents have filed their written memorandum of arguments, which I have duly perused.
(3) At the very Outset I may observe that it is only the Respondent No. 1 who was the respondent in the complaint before the Ld. Trial Court whereas Respondent No. 1A Sh. Arun Kumar, Assistant Manager, ICICI Bank and Respondent No. 2 Peacock Media Ltd.
through its Director Sh. Sandeep Chawla, had not been impleaded as respondents in the revision before this court. The perusal of the record shows that it is only the ICICI Bank which was impleaded as Respondent No. 1 before Trial Court and Peacock Media Ltd. was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 (not as Peacock India Ltd. through Sh. Sandeep Chawla). In fact their impleadment before the Ld. ACMM was necessary.
CTS Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (RC No. 06/2016) Page No. 2 of 5 (4) Secondly, I am informed that as on date the company Peacock Media Ltd. is under liquidation and in this regard Sh. Santosh Chaurihaa, Advocate / Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent no. 2 has placed on record the Order dated 4.12.2014 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "Rajesh Raheja Vs. M/s Peacock Media Limited" i.e. being Company Petition No. 188/2013 and Order dated 17.9.2013 in Insolvency Petition No. 9/2013 titled "Sandeep Deepak Chawla Vs. Gopaldas Lilaram Valecha", which is reflecting that company in question has been directed to be wound up. (5) Thirdly, it is prima facie evident from the record that the amount of loan which was sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1 had been actually disbursed to the Respondent No. 2, which I am orally informed as per ledger had been passed on to the complainant. This is an aspect which has not been duly considered by the Ld. Trial Court. (6) Fourthly, though it is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that the complainant was fully aware and it was in his knowledge that he had stood as a Guarantor to the Finance Facilities, despite which he continued in joint business even after being aware of the fact that he has given Corporate Guarantee, and he preferred to go ahead and made a request to the Respondent No. 1 Bank for Temporary Overdraft Facility, yet, I may note that while deciding the issue before it, the Ld. ACMM has failed to appreciate that the ground raised by the revisionist was of 'inducement'. The complainant had repeatedly alleged that the officials of the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 1A, had misrepresented, induced and duped him into doing so in connivance with the Respondent No. 2. In fact he has specifically alleged that the terms and CTS Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (RC No. 06/2016) Page No. 3 of 5 conditions of the credit had been unilaterally amended, modified and changed by the respondents, as evident from the letter of credit dated 30.4.2009, and it is this which is reflective of the criminality so alleged. This aspect has not been duly considered by the Ld. ACMM. (7) Lastly, it is also pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the 'inducement' is writ large since the record would confirm the siphoning of the funds which aspect is evident from the fact that some of the vendors to whom the payment was alleged to be paid by respondent no. 2 were in fact nonexisting. He submits that this aspect would be prima facie evident from the record of the Sale Tax department. In this regard I may observe that the witness from the Sale Tax department have never been cited by the revisionist before Trial Court nor called for examination nor the record of the Sale Tax department has been placed before the Trial Court to confirm and prove the siphoning of the funds as is now being alleged. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has now placed on record a list of additional witnesses seeking permission to call the said witnesses from Sale Tax department in order to prima facie show the siphoning of funds by nonexisting vendors and the aspect of criminality involved.
(8) Keeping in view the circumstances as highlighted before me, particularly, the fact that the Emails placed on record by the revisionist, do not exactly confirm the case and defence now being put forth by the respondents. This being the background, I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 4.2.2016. I direct the complainant to bring on record the Respondent No. 1A and also the Respondent No. 2 and to place on record on the Ld. Trial Court the amended memo of parties on CTS Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (RC No. 06/2016) Page No. 4 of 5 next date of hearing along with the copy of list of witnesses whom he wants to examine to prove the aspect of siphoning, which list has now been placed on record. Ld. Trial Court shall grant only one opportunity to the revisionist to call the concerned officials of Sale Tax department or any other witness in order to prove the nonexistence of the Vendors and any other witness to prove siphoning of funds. No other opportunity shall be granted for the said purpose. The revision petition is accordingly disposed off.
(9) The parties to appear before the Ld. ACMM (Central District) on 22.07.2017. The Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
(10) The revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 07.07.2017 Spl. Judge (P.C. Act) CBI01
(Central) THC/Delhi.
CTS Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. (RC No. 06/2016) Page No. 5 of 5