Delhi District Court
Kishan Lal Taneja vs Manoj Kumar on 14 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRITAM SINGH : ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE: WEST THC DELHI
CNR no. DLWT01-000560-2018
Suit No. 421/18
Kishan Lal Taneja
S/o Shri Mala Ram Taneja,
R/o EA-143/2, LIG Flats, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi-110027 ........... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Manoj Kumar,
S/o Sh. Mani Lal
R/o RZ-31A, Gali No.3, Syndicate Enclave,
Raghu Nagar,
New Delhi-110045
Also At
H. NO. 34-A, 3rd Floor, Fakkarwala Mohalla,
Village Munirka, New Delhi.
........ Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 10.04.2018
Date on which order was reserved : 02.09.2022
Date of decision : 14.09.2022
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.13,65,000/-(RUPEES THIRTEEN
LAKHS SIXTY FIVE THOUSANDS ONLY).
1.The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit are that the plaintiff was defrauded by the defendant with a planned fraud played by the defendant and his associates on account of the grant of dividend from LIC policies. It is further stated that one Rajeev Mittal had telephoned the plaintiff and stated that he is the Fund Manager of Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 1/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:33:30 +0530 General Body Counsel of Insurance (GBIC), Shantacr, Mumbai. He further told that from the side of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) the dividend has been granted to the plaintiff and his wife Smt. Varsha Taneja. He further told that the dividend has to be received in the name of the wife of the plaintiff as there are insurance policies in the name of the wife of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff was further enticed for making the payment on such false grounds. The plaintiff under the trust and bonafide impression had deposited and paid Rs.15,40,000/- to the defendant.
2. It is further stated that when the plaintiff found himself to be cheated, made a written complaint and an FIR bearing FIR No.520 dated 26.4.2016 was registered against the defendant at PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi under Section 420/34 IPC. Thereafter, police officials of P.S. Rajouri Garden had arrested the defendant on the complaint of the plaintiff and was sent to Jail after having been arrested. It is further stated that since the plaintiff under a planned fraud had been asked to deposit the amount in the name of three different firms namely, Trade International, Dreamz Infotech and 3 Tech Solutions, the plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs. 15,40,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs forty thousand only) in the said firm's account i.e. Andhra Bank, Canara Bank and Indian Overseas Bank. The defendant was found the sole beneficiary of the amount so deposited by the plaintiff. It is further stated that even after the arrest of the defendant, the plaintiff repeatedly asked the defendant and his father to refund the deposited amount. However, an amicable settlement had been arrived at between the father of the defendant and the plaintiff whereby the defendant and his father had agreed to refund the amount of Rs. 15,40,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 2/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:33:40 +0530 Forty Thousand only) to the plaintiff.
3. It is further stated that the defendant through his father and by virtue of the Settlement Deed dated 10.08.2017, had agreed to pay Rs. 15,40,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) to the plaintiff and the defendant had paid Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand) through a Demand Draft bearing No.427304 drawn on State Bank of India dated 10.08.2017 and remaining amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Only) was admitted to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant in 13 equal installments. The future schedule of remaining amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Only) is as under:-
1. 10.10.2017 Rs.1,00,000/-
2. 10.12.2017 Rs.1,00,000/-
3. 10.02.2018 Rs.1,00,000/-
4. 10.04.2018 Rs.1,00,000/-
5. 10.06.2018 Rs.1,00,000/-
6. 10.08.2018 Rs.1,00,000/-
7. 10.10.2018 Rs.1,00,000/-
8. 10.12.2018 Rs.1,00,000/-
9. 10.02.2019 Rs.1,00,000/-
10. 10.04.2019 Rs.1,00,000/-
11. 10.06.2019 Rs.1,00,000/-
12. 10.08.2019 Rs.1,00,000/-
13. 10.09.2019 Rs.1,00,000/-
4. It is further stated that upon the arrival of the settlement between the defendant through his father and the plaintiff, the defendant filed a bail application before the concerned court relying on the settlement dated 10.08.2017 and filed a copy of Demand Draft of Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 3/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:33:57 +0530 Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakhs forty thousand) as first installment of the settlement. The Hon'ble Court only then has been pleased to enlarge the defendant on bail. It is further stated that thereafter defendant had not made any payment to the plaintiff and the plaintiff got issued a demand notice to the defendant vide notice dated 20.12.2017 on the address which was mentioned in the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017. It is further stated that the defendant is liable to make the payment of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Only) to the plaintiff as a principal amount. The defendant is also liable to pay the interest amount @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 10.10.2017 till the filing of this suit which comes to Rs. 13,65,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs sixty five thousands only).
5. It has been prayed that suit of the plaintiff may be decreed for an amount of Rs.13,65,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Only) along with future interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of the filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount.
6. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it has been stated that the above said settlement deed was alleged to be signed by the father of the defendant on his of behalf, who is neither involved nor aware about the FIR. It is further stated that the defendant is not bound by the alleged settlement deed signed by his father, since the defendant was in judicial custody at the time execution of the alleged settlement deed. Further, the defendant was neither informed nor his consent could have been taken before the execution of the said settlement deed about the terms and conditions as set forth in the alleged settlement deed.
7. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not impleaded the second partner of the defendant i.e., Deepak Sharma and other persons as Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 4/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:34:06 +0530 were mentioned in the alleged FIR lodged by the plaintiff himself for the reason best known to him. It is further stated that upon bare perusal of the FIR, it is amply clear that the plaintiff has been deposited the alleged amount at the instance of the several other named persons, but they could not be impleaded as party in the present suit. Hence, onus cannot be shift on the shoulder of the defendant for the acts done by the other named persons in the alleged FIR. It is further stated that the plaintiff has already settled his dispute with other parties and has received the remaining claim amount from above said Sh. Deepak Sharma at the time of bail granted to Sh. Deepak Sharma. It is denied that the defendant played fraud with plaintiff. It is further submitted that the allegations were also raised by the plaintiff in his plaint against Sh. Rajeev Mittal but he was not impleaded as party in the present suit, since the plaintiff has already settled the issues with him.
8. It is further denied that the the plaintiff deposited money in the account of the defendant or at the instance of the defendant. The money deposited by the plaintiff are admittedly at the instance of said Sh. Rajeev Mittal and others known persons named in the alleged FIR. It is further denied that the defendant or his father agreed to refund the amount of Rs. 15,40,000/- to the plaintiff in terms of amicable settlement deed dated 10.08.2017. It is further denied by the defendant that the plaintiff has served any legal notice to the defendant. All other averments made in the plaint are denied.
9. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff reiterating and re- affirming the stand taken by the plaintiff and denying the contents of the written statement of the defendants.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 5/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:34:15 +0530 framed on 22.04.2019 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court:-
1 Whether the the present suit is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections taken by the defendant in the written statement? OPD 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of Rs.13,65,000/- along with interest as prayed for by the plainitff in the plaint?
3 Relief.
Evidence
11. In order to prove her case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He reiterated and reaffirmed the stand taken by him in the plaint. Plaintiff also examined HC Zile Singh, No. 111SD, PS Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi as PW2, Constable Shyam Kumar, No. 4599/GGM, PS Sector-56, Gurugram, Haryana as PW3 and Sh. Inderpreet Singh, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Vinik Jain, Ld. MM-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW4.
The plaintiff relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of FIR No. 520/16. Ex.PW1/1
2. Copy of settlement deed dated Ex.PW1/2 10.08.2017.
3. Legal Notice dated 20.12.2017. Ex.PW1/3 4. Postal receipts. Ex.PW1/4
5. Registered envelope. Ex.PW1/5
6. Copy of FIR No. 92/2016. Ex.PW2/A(OSR)
7. Copy of FIR No. 0474/2016 dated Ex.PW3/1(OSR).Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 6/20 Digitally signed
PRITAM by PRITAM
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2022.09.14
16:34:23 +0530
30.12.2016.
8. The copy of order dated passed by Sh. Ex.PW4/1(OSR)
Ajay Kumar Malik, Ld. MM-02(West)
dated 11.08.2017.
12. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that his evidence by way of affidavit has been filed in his presence and he was aware about the true facts of the affidavit. PW1 further deposed that he had a policy in his name and his wife name and he had not received any bonus from the insurance policy. PW1 further deposed that the defendant had called him and told him his account number, IFSC Code number, Bank or Branch and further told on telephone that after the maturity of his policy and policy of his wife, the dividend had come. PW1 further deposed that in the month of December, 2015, he came to know that a fraud had been played upon him and his wife by the defendant.
13. PW1 further admitted the suggestion that he went to bank to get the details of the account in which he had transferred the amount.
PW1 further deposed that on making the enquiry in the bank, he came to know the name of the defendant as Manoj Kumar S/o Mani Lal. PW1 admitted the suggestion that prior to making the enquiry in the bank, he did not know the name of the defendant as Manoj Kumar. PW1 further admitted the suggestion that as per the bank details given by Sh. Rajeev Mittal, he had deposited the amount of Rs.15,40,000/-. PW1 admitted the suggestion that he had deposited the amount in the accounts which were given by Sh. Rajeev Mittal. PW1 denied the suggestion that Rajeev Mittal had ever come to meet him at his house or that he had given the Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 7/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:34:31 +0530 form filled up to Rajeev Mittal. PW1 denied the suggestion that the person in the name of Manoj had come to meet him. PW1 admitted the suggestion that prior to this case, he never met Sh. Manoj Kumar/defendant. PW1 denied the suggestion that he came to know the details of the company i.e. Trade International, Dreamz Infotech and 3 Tech Solutions. By way of volunteer PW1 deposed that all the details of the company were told by the defendant. PW1 admitted the suggestion that at the time of execution of settlement deed dated 10.08.2017, the defendant was in judicial custody in connection with his case. By way of volunteer he stated that he was called by the IO at the time of the arrest of the defendant in PS Rajouri Garden where the defendant showed his desire to get the matter settled with him and the agreement was executed as a result.
14. PW2 HC Zile Singh No. 111SD, PS Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was a summoned witness and he brought the records i.e. FIR No. 92/2016 U/s 420/34 IPC PS Greater Kailash-I, The copy of the FIR exhibited as Ex.PW2/A(OSR). In his cross-examination PW2 deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the present matter and the FIR in question.
15. PW3 Ct. Shyam Kumar No. 4599/GGM, PS Sector-56, Gurugram, Haryana. deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was a summoned witness and he brought the records i.e. FIR No. 0474/2016 dated 30.12.2016 u/s 406/420 IPC PS Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana. The copy of FIR exhibited as Ex.PW3/1(Colly). PW3 was not cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
16. PW4 Sh. Inderpreet Singh, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Vinik Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 8/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2022.09.14 16:34:37 +0530 Jain, Ld. MM-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was a summoned witness and he brought the records i.e. original file of the case titled as State Vs. Manoj Kumar bearing FIR No. 520/2016 PS Rajouri Garden pending in the Court of Sh. Vinik Jain, Ld. MM-02, West, THC, Delhi. He compared and checked the copy of the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik, the then, Ld. MM-02(West), THC, Delhi with the main file and the same was correct. The copy of order dated 11.08.2017 exhibited as Ex.PW4/1(OSR). PW4 was not cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
17. In order to prove his defence, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
1. Certified copies of charge sheet filed Ex.DW1/1(Colly) against defendant and Deepak Sharma and bail order dated 05.12.2018.
2. Bail Order dated 11.08.2017 passed by Ex.DW1/2 (It is Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik, the then MM-02, already exhibited as West, THC, Delhi. Ex.PW4/1)
18. In the cross examination, DW1 deposed that he was doing a private job and in the year 2016-17, he had been working as Technician in MS Infotech, Nehru Place, New Delhi. DW1 further deposed that he had been maintaining bank account in Indian Overseas Bank Branch Palika Bhawan, Bikaji Kama Place, New Delhi in the name of M/s Dream Infotech and he was the proprietor of M/s Dream Infotech. DW1 further deposed that he was also the proprietor of M/s Trade International and the bank account of this firm was at Shadipur in Syndicate Bank.
Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 9/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.14
16:34:42 +0530
DW1 further deposed that he was also maintaining a bank account in Andhra Bank, Branch M Block Connaught Place related to his proprietorship firm namely M/s Trade International. DW1 further deposed that he did not remember the account number if it was bearing account No.0084111403572. DW1 further deposed that he could verify this account number from the documents of the bank.
19. DW1 further deposed that he was also the proprietor of a firm namely Three Tech Solutions and he had a bank account with Andhra Bank, Sector-57, Gurugram, Haryana. DW1 further deposed that there are four FIRs and criminal proceedings lying pending in different places and courts against him. DW1 further deposed that he knew what allegations were leveled against him in four FIRs. DW1 further deposed that he knew that in FIR bearing No. 520/2016 PS Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, the allegation for forgery had been leveled against him. DW1 further deposed that he did not knew if in FIR No. 520/2016 PS Rajouri Garden, it has been alleged that he had been calling the plaintiff herein by impersonating himself as Rajeev Mittal. DW1 further deposed that he did not know what were the allegations had been leveled against him in FIR No. 520/2016. DW1 further deposed that he had hired an Advocate to conduct and pursue the criminal case pending in the court of Sh. Vinik Jain, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. DW1 further deposed that he had been told by his lawyer as to what allegations had been leveled in case FIR No.520/2016. DW1 further deposed that he knew Hindi Language reading and writing. DW1 further deposed that he had gone through the FIR No. 520/2016 PS Rajouri Garden u/s 420/34 IPC.
20. DW1 admitted the suggestion that he had withdrawn the Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 10/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:34:56 +0530 amount of Rs.9,85,000/- from the bank namely Andhra Bank, M Block Connaught Place, New Delhi but he was not confirmed whether this amount was deposited by the plaintiff in his bank account. DW1 admitted the suggestion that he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- from his bank account namely Indian Overseas Bank, Bikaji Kama Place, New Delhi, however, he was not confirmed whether this amount was deposited by the plaintiff in his bank account. DW1 admitted the suggestion that he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- from his bank account namely Andhra Bank, Sector-57, Gurugram, Haryana, however, he was not confirmed whether this amount was deposited by the plaintiff in his bank account. DW1 denied the suggestion that deliberately, he had not filed and submitted the particulars of his bank accounts, depositing and withdrawal in order to hide the facts that the amount of Rs.14,15,000/- had been deposited by the plaintiff in his bank accounts. DW1 further denied the suggestion that this amount was deposited by the plaintiff in his bank accounts on the false pretext of receiving of dividend of the LIC Policies of the plaintiff and his wife. DW1 further deposed that he had no document in respect of the fact that the amounts which were withdrawn from his banks by him were supposed to be received by his clients or by his customers. DW1 further deposed that he had no idea if the amount of Rs.14,15,000/- withdrawn by him from his banks, it was supposed to be received by him during the ordinary course of his business. DW1 further deposed that through Deepak Sharma this payment was being received in his bank accounts. DW1 further deposed that he had not initiated any case or legal action against said Deepak Sharma for the reason that due to his illegal activities, he had suffered and had been facing the criminal and civil Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 11/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2022.09.14 16:35:03 +0530 litigations.
21. DW1 further deposed that he remained in judicial custody for about 30 days in case FIR No. 520/2016. DW1 further deposed that his father namely Sh. Mani Lal was his Perokar during his judicial custody. DW1 further deposed that his mother's name is Smt. Urmila Devi and name of his wife is Smt. Pratibha. DW1 further deposed that he recognized the signatures of his father which is encircled in red at point A of settlement deed Ex.PW1/2. DW1 further deposed that he also recognized the signatures of his mother and his wife which are encircled in red at points B & C respectively on the document Ex.PW1/2. DW1 further deposed that he was told by his father when he got released on bail that a settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 had been executed between plaintiff and through his father on his behalf for the refund of the amount in 13 installments of Rs.1 Lac each w.e.f. October 2017 till September, 2019. DW1 further deposed that he was also told and he knew this fact that in lieu of the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and his father on his behalf an advance payment of compromise of Rs.2,40,000/- had already been paid to the plaintiff vide Demand Draft/pay order bearing No. 427304 dated 10.08.2017 drawn on State Bank of India. DW1 admitted the suggestion that after making the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- through the Demand Draft, he was granted bail by the Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. DW1 further deposed that he had not initiated any legal recourse for getting the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 cancelled or to declare null and void or to declare not binding upon him in any court of law or at any legal platform. DW1 further deposed that he had not filed even any counter-claim in the present case for the relief of getting the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 declared null and void or Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 12/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:35:21 +0530 not binding upon him. DW1 further deposed that he had also not filed any application or initiate any step in the Court of Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in respect of the fact that during his judicial custody, the settlement deed executed by his father on his behalf is not acceptable to him and he did not want the bail order on the terms and conditions of compromise/settlement deed dated 10.08.2017. DW1 denied the suggestion that his father entered into the compromise/settlement with the plaintiff with his consent and knowledge and he had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement deed Ex.PW1/2 after being released on bail. DW1 further denied the suggestion that upon his instructions, his father had entered into the settlement vide settlement deed dated 10.08.2017. DW1 further denied the suggestion that he had the knowledge that the plaintiff had deposited the amount of Rs.14,15,000/- in his three bank accounts as he impersonated himself as Rajeev Mittal and also on the pretext that he was working as Fund Manager of General Body Council of Insurance (GBIC), Santacruse, Mumbai. DW1 further denied the suggestion that he had received Rs.14,15,000/- due to fraud committed by him upon the plaintiff. DW1 further denied the suggestion that Rs.1,15,000/- also received by him through his other associates of the fraud business.
22. DW1 further deposed that he did not remember the contents of his bail order dated 11.08.2017. DW1 further deposed that after seeing the judicial file, it is correct that he was granted bail on 11.08.2017. DW1 admitted the suggestion that the entire amount of Rs.2,40,000/-paid to the complainant had been mentioned by the Ld. MM in the bail order dated 11.08.2017. DW1 admitted the suggestion that on 20.12.2017, he was residing at RZ-31A, Gali No.3, Syndicate Enclave, Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 13/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:35:35 +0530 Raghu Nagar, New Delhi-110045. DW1 admitted the fact that on 20.12.2017, he was on bail. DW1 further deposed that he did not remember if he had received the legal notice dated 20.12.2017 Ex.PW1/3. DW1 admitted the suggestion that he had not given any reply of any such notice. By way of volunteer DW1 deposed that he was not confirmed whether he had received the notice or not. DW1 admitted the suggestion that he had to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 Ex.PW1/2 after coming out from the Jail which he could not perform and obey. DW1 admitted the suggestion that in settlement deed Ex.PW1/2, his name had been shown as second party. DW1 further deposed that he could not tell any specific reason as to why he could not comply with the terms and conditions of settlement deed Ex.PW1/2. DW1 admitted the suggestion that Rs.2,40,000/- paid by his father on his behalf by virtue of the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 Ex.PW1/2. By way of volunteer DW1 deposed that he only knew this fact that he was released on bail after the settlement and the payment of Rs.2,40,000/-.
23. Final arguments heard. Entire record perused.
24. The findings on above said issues are as under:-
Issue no. 1 1 Whether the the present suit is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections taken by the defendant in the written statement? OPD
25. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendants. The defendant got examined himself as DW1. Defendant took the preliminary objections in the written statement and also deposed accordingly that the plaintiff filed the present suit on the basis of settlement deed dated Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 14/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:35:42 +0530 10.08.2017 entered into between the plaintiff and his father (defendant's father) but he is not bound by the said settlement deed as he was in judicial custody at the time of the execution of the said settlement deed. DW1 further deposed he was neither informed nor his consent was taken before the execution of the settlement deed and also not informed about the terms and conditions of the said deed. DW1 further deposed that the plaintiff had not impleaded Deepak Sharma, the second partner of the defendant and also other persons as mentioned in the FIR no. 520/2016 dated 26.04.2016. DW1 further deposed that his father was kept in dark by the plaintiff and his father signed the settlement deed under the pressure of the plaintiff, therefore, the settlement deed has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and is no binding upon him.
26. DW1 further deposed that the plaintiff had settled the dispute with other parties and received the remaining amount of Rs.3 lakhs from Deepak Sharma and the plaintiff had also received the amount from other persons mentioned in the FIR, therefore, he had not impleaded them in the present suit.
27. DW1 deposed in his cross-examination that the he was told by his father when he got released on bail that a settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 had executed between the plaintiff and his father on his behalf for the refund of the amount in 13 installments of Rs.1 lakhs each with effect from October, 2017 till September 2019. DW1 further deposed that he was also told and he knew the fact that in view of the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and his father on his behalf an advance payment of Rs.2,40,000/- had been paid to the plaintiff vide demand draft by his father. DW1 further admitted that after making the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- to the plaintiff he was granted bail by the concerned Ld. MM at Delhi. DW1 further deposed that he had not initiated any legal recourse for getting settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 cancelled or to declare it null or void or to declare it not binding upon Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 15/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2022.09.14 16:35:51 +0530 him in any court of law.
28. Though the defendant in his evidence by way of affidavit stated that he was not bound by the settlement deed as it was signed by his father and he was in the judicial custody at the time of the execution of the said settlement deed dated 10.08.2017. Further, took the defence that he was neither informed nor his sign was taken before the execution of the settlement deed. However, DW1 admitted that only after making the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- as per the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 he was granted bail by the Ld. MM, Delhi. DW1 was also told by his father after he got released on bail that the settlement deed was executed between the plaintiff and the his father on his behalf for refund of the amount in 13 installments of Rs.1 lakh each from 10.08.2017 to 10.09.2017, and, he was also aware that in view of the settlement an advance payment of Rs.2,40,000/- was paid by way of demand draft to the plaintiff by his father. The defendant has also identified the signature of his father, his mother and his wife on settlement deed Ex.PW1/2 at point A, B and C respectively. Thus, it is well established that the father of the defendant entered into settlement with the plaintiff to pay Rs.15,40,000/- to the plaintiff and out the said amount Rs.2,40,000/- was paid by way of demand draft to the plaintiff. On furnishing the said settlement deed before the concerned Court only thereafter the defendant was granted bail in the FIR no. 520/16, u/s 420/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden, therefore, the objections of the defendant that he was not bound by the settlement deed Ex.PW1/2 executed by his father on his behalf has no merit and this plea has been taken by the defendant in order to avoid his liability to make payment to the plaintiff as per the settlement deed Ex.PW1/2. The further objections of the defendant that the plaintiff had not impleaded Deepak Sharma and his other associates as defendants in the present suit, therefore, the present suit is bad, have no substance because it is well settled law that the plaintiff is the master of his suit and Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 16/20 Digitally signed PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:36:07 +0530 the defendant cannot direct the plaintiff to whom he should implead as a party or to whom should not implead as a party. Accordingly, the preliminary objections raised by the defendant in the written statement have no support of law and are not to any help to the defendant. Hence, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2.
2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of Rs.13,65,000/- along with interest as prayed for by the plainitff in the plaint?
29. The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. PW1 deposed that he had deposited the amount of Rs.15,40,000/- in three bank accounts in the name of M/s Trade International, M/s Dreamz Infotech and M/s 3 Tech Solutions having accounts in Andhra Bank M Block, C.P, Delhi, Indian Overseas Bank and Andhra Bank, Sector-57, Gurugram, Haryana respectively. The defendant is proprietor of all these three firms in whose accounts the plaintiff deposited Rs.15,40,000/-.
30. Plaintiff has succeeded to prove from the testimoney of DW1 that all the said three bank accounts were maintained by the defendant. DW1 deposed that he had been maintaining bank account in Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Palika Bhawan, Bhikaji Gama Place, New Delhi in the name of M/s Dream Infotech and he was the proprietor of M/s Dream Infotech. DW1 further deposed that he was also maintaining a bank account in Andhra Bank, Branch M Block Connaught Place related to his proprietorship firm namely M/s Trade International. Thus, it is proved from the testimony of the DW1 that defendant was sole proprietor of all three firms namely, M/s Trade International, M/s Dreamz Infotech and M/s 3 Tech International Solutions.Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 17/20 Digitally signed
PRITAM by PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.09.14 16:36:16 +0530
31. DW1 admitted that he had withdrawn Rs.9,85,000/- form his bank account in Andhra Bank, M Block C.P,New Delhi. DW1 further admitted that he had also withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- form his bank account in Indian Overseas Bank, Bikaji Kama Place, New Delhi and he had also withdrawn Rs.40,000/- from the Andhra Bank, Sector-57 Gurugram, Haryana. Thus, the plaintiff has also succeeded to prove from the cross-examination of the DW1 that the defendant had withdrawn the amount from three bank accounts of his above said firms. The defendant took the plea that he was not confirmed whether the above said amount of Rs.9,85,000/-, Rs.3,90,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were deposited by the plaintiff in above said three bank accounts. From this it is further established that the plaintiff deposited Rs.9,85,000/- , Rs.3,90,000/- and Rs.40,000/- in three bank accounts of the defendant's firm and all the three said amount were withdrawn by the defendant from his bank accounts.
32. The plaintiff has not only proved the FIR no. 520/16 under Section 420/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden lodged by him against the defendant but also proved the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 Ex.PW1/2 executed between the plaintiff and the father of the defendant, on behalf of the defendant and the same was also signed by the mother and wife of the defendant. Thus, it is further established that the defendant was liable to pay Rs.13 lakhs to the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the settlement deed dated 10.08.2017 Ex.PW1/2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 13,65,000/- including Rs.13 lakhs as principal and Rs.65,000/- as interest. The defendant has filed certified copy of charge sheet Ex.DW1/1 and there is order dated 05.12.2018 i.e. part of the charge sheet wherein it is stated that " On inquiry complaint submits that he has compromised the offence u/s 420/34 IPC with the accused Deepak Sharma and in liew of the such settlement, he has already received the part payment of Rs.1,50,000/-
Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 18/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2022.09.14
16:36:30 +0530
from the accused Deepak Sharma out of total settlement amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. He further submits that the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid by accused Deepak Sharma at the time of final settlement of the case. It is further submissions of complainant that in view of the above settlement, he has no objection if accused Deepak Sharma is granted bail." Thus, from the bail order dated 05.12.2018 by which bail was granted to the accused Deepak Sharma it is established that the plaintiff settled the dispute with the Deepak Sharma for Rs.3 lakhs out of which Rs.1,50,000/- was received by him at the time of grant of bail to accused Deepak Sharma. This court is of the considered view that as the plaintiff has settled the dispute with accused Deepak Sharma that has arisen out of the same FIR Ex.PW1/1, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.10 lakhs from the defendant (Rs.13 lakhs - Rs.3 lakhs = Rs.10 Lakhs).
33. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 12 % per annum but is on a very higher side, in the interest of justice, interest @ 9% p.a from the date of settlement i.e. 10.08.2017 till realization of the decreetal amount is granted to the plaintiff. In view of the above discussions, the issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
RELIEF:
34. As per the findings on issue no. 2 it is proved that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.10 lakhs from the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled for interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of settlement deed i.e. 10.08.2017 till realization of the decretal amount. Accordingly, a decree of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Only) along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of settlement i.e. 10.08.2017 till realization of decretal amount is passed against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed accordingly. The cost of the suit is awarded to the Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 19/20 Digitally signed by PRITAM PRITAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2022.09.14 16:36:46 +0530 plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
PRITAM
PRITAM SINGH
Announced in the open court SINGH Date:
(PRITAM SINGH) 2022.09.14
on this 14th day of September 2022 ADJ (WEST)THC Delhi16:37:04
+0530
Suit No. 421/18 Kishan Lal Taneja Vs. Manoj Kumar Page No. 20/20