Delhi District Court
M/S Majestic Buildcon Pvt Ltd vs Bkr Capital Pvt Ltd on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04,CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM) 525/2018
M/S. MAJESTICS BUILDCON
Through its Director
Mr. Amit Gupta
Regd. Office: JD-12, LG-1,
Ground Floor, Khirki Extension,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
.... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.M/S BKR CAPITAL PVT. LTD.
Having Registered office at:
10174/1A, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
2. BAJRANG LAL PERIWAL Director M/s. BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd.
R/o D-8, NEB Valley, Neb Sarai, Delhi-110068
3. MS. RAJMANI MAHESHWARI Director, M/s. BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd.
R/o D-8, NEB Valley, Neb Sarai, Delhi-110068
4. MS. BHUMIKA PERIWAL Director, M/s. BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd.
R/o D-8, NEB Valley, Neb Sarai, Delhi-110068
5. MR. RADHEY SHYAM RATHI Director, ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:21:08 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 1 by 42 M/s. BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd.
R/o C-19A and C-20, Second floor, Indra Enclave, Neb Sari, Delhi-110068
6. MR. SANJAY GOEL S/o Late Sh. P.C. Goel, R/o C-21, Ground floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, South Delhi, New Delhi-110017 .... Defendants Date of filing of the suit : 01.12.2018 Date of reserving judgment : 09.04.2025 Date of judgment : 26.04.2025 Judgment
1. This is a suit for recovery for Rs. 66,94,587/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred and eighty seven only) filed by plaintiff against the defendants. Initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff only against defendant nos.1 to 5. Later on, defendant nos. 1 to 5 filed an application u/O 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of defendant no.6 in the suit. The said application was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2021 and defendant no.6 was impleaded as a party in the suit. Plaintiff also filed an application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking consequential amendments in the plaint and the said application was also allowed vide order dated 04.12.2021.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff deals in the business of civil constructions including but not limited to construction of Buildings, Hotels and is also into Real Estate. The defendant no.1 is a registered 'Non Banking Financial Company' ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:21:24 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 2 by 42 (NBFC). The defendant no.2 to 5 are the directors of the defendant no.1. Defendant no.6 is the then Director of the plaintiff company. Defendant no.1 is providing easy loans and also accepts 'deposits' at the pre- determined rate of interest or at the applicable rate of interest determined by the defendants at the end of every quarter/financial year.
3. It is further stated that on 12.07.2007, the plaintiff company took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the defendant no.1 and the same was returned immediately after 2 days i.e. on 14.07.2007 as no rate of interest was settled on the said loan amount. The defendants thereafter repeatedly requested the plaintiff company to take loan or to provide the 'Deposits'. The plaintiff company thereafter approached the defendant no.1 through its directors seeking 'Deposits' in their company i.e. the defendant no.1. On 13.09.2014, the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.13,90,000/- as 'Deposits' to the defendant no.1 from the bank account of the plaintiff. However, the defendants did not determine the rate of interest and when enquired by the plaintiff, the defendants stated that they will declare the rate of interest at the end of financial year and the interest would be a minimum of 9% and maximum of 18%.
4. Thereafter again, in the year 2015, the defendants approached the plaintiff seeking further 'Deposits' into their 'NBFC' company and the plaintiff on 02.12.2015 further advanced an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the defendant no.1 as 'Deposits'. However, this time it was assured by the defendants that the rate of interest would be decided at the end of financial year and the same will be paid by the defendants on 31.03.2016 for the term 13.09.2014 till 31.03.2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff has requested the defendants to provide the interest on the amount as 'Deposits' or else return the amount with due interest. It is further stated ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:21:38 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 3 by 42 that at the end of Financial Year 2015-16, defendants no.1 to 5 deposited TDS as per Form 26AS and the TDS certificate reflecting that defendants had deposited the TDS of Rs.21,976/- on the interest amount of Rs.2,19,763/-. However, the balance interest over the deposits have not been paid till date despite regular follow up.
5. It is averred that the plaintiff tried to approach the defendants by making several requests and personal visits at their office demanding the outstanding interest. However, the same went in vain. The plaintiff further avers that no interest over the 'Deposits' was ever paid by the defendants apart from the TDS in the year 2015-16. The total outstanding amount including amount towards 'Deposits' as well as the interest on the same is Rs.66,94,587/- due from the defendants including an interest of 18% per annum due from 01.04.2016 till the filing of the present suit, particulars of which are mentioned at page 9 of the plaint. On 28.09.2017, the plaintiff had sent an email calling upon the defendants to return the said amount along with interest within 15 days but the defendants neither returned the said amount nor responded to the aforesaid email. It was stated that defendant no.6 was always made aware through email that the plaintiff company is in the process of approaching the legal remedy against defendant nos.1 to 5 but he never informed the plaintiff about the transfer made by defendant nos.2 to 5 in his personal account. The plaintiff filed the police complaint against all the defendants. It is further stated that all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the outstanding amount to the plaintiff company. Finding no alternative, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
6. Summons of the suit were duly served on the defendants and ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:21:51 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 4 by 42 defendants have contested the suit by filing their WS.
WS of Defendant no.1 to 5
7. In their WS, defendants nos. 1 to 5 have raised preliminary objections that the present suit has been filed by concealing material information and true facts. The present suit has not been instituted, signed and verified by a duly authorized person. The resolution dated 15.09.2018 is a fictitious document which was created for the purpose of filing the present suit. It only bears the signature of Amit Gupta and does not bear the signatures of other directors and therefore, the suit has been filed without any sanction/authorization of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company. It is stated that the plaintiff has fabricated another resolution dated 15.09.2018 which contains the signature of other director to cover up the lapses and both the documents are different. It is further submitted that the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant nos. 2 to 5, who have no privity of contract with the plaintiff and they are liable to be deleted from the array of the parties as they are merely the directors of defendant no.1 having no personal liability towards a company. It is further submitted that the present suit has been filed with malafide intention to extract money from defendants nos. 1 to 5 where in fact, no amount is due towards the plaintiff and there appears to be a collusion between the directors of the plaintiff company.
Defendants nos. 1 to 5 have further stated that the plaintiff company is a family concern of Sh. Amit Gupta and his relative Sh. Sanjay Goel (defendant no.6). Sh. Sanjay Goel approached the defendant company and offered to make deposits with the defendant on normal banking rate of interest from the plaintiff company. Thereafter, Sh. Sanjay Goel vide letter dated 13.09.2014 forwarded cheque bearing no. 27960 dated 13.09.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- to be kept as a Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:22:03 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 5 by 42 deposit on interest. The defendant company accepted the amount on interest rate of 9% per annum. Vide another letter dated 02.12.2015 Mr. Sanjay Goel forwarded another cheque bearing no. 108892 dated 02.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the defendant company which was accepted by the defendant company as a deposit on interest and the amounts were credited in the ledger account maintained by the defendant company. It is further stated that defendant company had also credited a sum of Rs.2,19,763/- on the said deposits in the ledger account towards interest @ 9% per annum and even deducted and deposited the TDS on the said amount. It was further stated that defendant no.6 Sanjay Goel was side by side also keeping money as deposit with defendant company and defendant company was maintaining a ledger account in his name. On 15.04.2016, Sanjay Goel wrote a letter to the defendant company and instructed defendant no.1 to transfer the entire amount standing in the name of plaintiff company in his personal ledger account as there was some dispute with their bank. After receiving the instructions from defendant no.6, defendant no.1 transferred a sum of Rs.46,55,992/- in the ledger account of Sanjay Goel from the account of the plaintiff company and also intimated this fact to defendant no.6 vide letter dated 16.04.2016. Sh. Sanjay Goel withdrew the entire amount on different occasions including the aforesaid amount of Rs.46,55,992/-. It was stated that the entire amount was paid to Sh. Sanjay Goel through cheques which was encashed by him.
It was further stated that the directors of plaintiff company are close relatives and the present suit has been filed in collusion with each other after the entire amount had already been returned to the director of the plaintiff company as per his instructions. It was further stated that all the instructions and meetings were conducted by Sh. Sanjay Goel since the beginning and Sh. Amit Gupta, who has filed the present suit was ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:22:17 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 6 by 42 never in the picture and had never met the directors of the defendant company. The corporate veil of the plaintiff company is liable to be lifted to see who are the persons actually conducting the business of the plaintiff company. It was further stated that Sh. Sanjay Goel is a necessary party to the present suit and the suit cannot be decided properly without his presence. It was further stated that the plaintiff and its director had never disputed the authority of defendant no.6 to transact with defendant nos. 1 to 5 since the beginning. Defendant no.6 was dealing with the defendant no.1 company since the beginning and was giving instructions to the defendant company on behalf of the plaintiff and now the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the authority of defendant no.6. The entire conduct of the plaintiff and Amit Gupta shows that they were acting in collusion with the defendant no.6.
In reply on merits, defendant nos. 1 to 5 have stated that no amount is due towards the plaintiff company and the present suit is false. Defendant no.1 company has already paid the entire amount along with interest @ 9% per annum. In the ledger account of defendant no.6 as per instructions vide letter dated15.04.2016 written by defendant no.6 which was withdrawn by defendant no.6 over the period of 9 months from June 2017 to March 2018. Defendants denied the receipt of email dated 28.09.2017 and stated that the same was a fictitious document. Other contents of the plaint were also denied and the prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.
WS of Defendant no. 6
8. In the WS, defendant no. 6 has raised preliminary objections and submissions stating that he is one of the Promoter-Directors of plaintiff Company which was incorporated on 28.05.2007 along with Sh. Amit Gupta having its registered office at JD-12, LG-1, L.G.F, Khirki Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:22:36 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 7 by 42 Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017. It was further stated that defendant no. 6 and Sh. Amit Gupta are close relatives and have pursued business objectives jointly in the plaintiff company as well as other business entities such as SAG Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., SAG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and other joint ventures which were co-owned by them. It was stated that the relations between defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta remained cordial and undisputed till 2015-16 when the first dispute arose between them on account of share holding distribution in the plaintiff company which extended to all the entities. Defendant no.6 initially held 33% share in the plaintiff company which was brought down to 21% by way of conspiracy by Sh. Amit Gupta. Defendant no.6 initiated action before NCLT, New Delhi vide Petition no. 70/ND/2017 which was dismissed and appeal preferred against the judgment of NCLT was also dismissed by NCLAT. It was further stated that Sh. Amit Gupta has clandestinely received substantial cash on behalf of other group companies from the deposit holders in such company. Sh. Amit Gupta also filed a suit for recovery at Saket Court in the similar manner depsite knowing that these entities settled in cash deposit account entries. Sh. Amit Gupta also instituted a number of mischievous proceedings against defendant no.6. The defendant no.6 has affirmed the submission of the defendant no.1 for lifting of the corporate veil to determine financial transactions carried in the plaintiff company and the role of Sh. Amit Gupta and other group companies. It was stated that Sh. Amit Gupta being majority share holder removed defendant no.6 from the directorship of the plaintiff company in order to hijack the affairs of the plaintiff company. It was submitted that an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Only) was transferred on 27.06.2015 by Smt. Meenu Goel, wife of defendant no.6 to Sh. Amit Gupta but no formal agreement was signed as parties were having family relationship. It was mutually Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:22:58 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 8 by 42 agreed between defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta that the amount received by the plaintiff company from defendant no.1 shall go into the credit of defendant no.6 as defendant no.6, his wife and Amit Gupta were holding various debit and credit entries on their personal account directly and indirectly but after disputes arose between the parties, defendant no.6 pursued for realization of deposit held with defendant no.1 in his current account to safeguard his interest. It was further stated that defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta, on account of mutual understanding, had carried out transactions on behalf of group companies into their personal current accounts and Sh. Amit Gupta was having complete knowledge of the same.
On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied and it has been stated that the director of the plaintiff company is intending to extort money from the defendants by way of the present suit. A prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit.
9 Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and defendant no.6 and has reiterated the contents of the plaint. It has been submitted that defendant nos. 1 to 5 and defendant no. 6 are in collusion with each other. It was stated that defendant nos.1 to 5 without any verification and without obtaining any Board Resolution blindly trusted the inspections given by defendant no.6 and transferred the money belonging to the plaintiff company in the personal ledger account of defendant no.6. It was further stated that the letter dated 15.04.2016, 13.09.2014 and 02.12.2015 were never issued by the plaintiff company and the same have been fabricated by the defendants. In reply to the WS of defendant no.6, the plaintiff has also submitted that Amit Gupta had paid a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/- to Mrs. Meenu Goel for purchase of a property, out of which a sum of Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:23:18 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 9 by 42 Rs.40,00,000/- was refunded by Mrs. Meenu Goel and she retained an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- which is a separate transaction. It was stated that defendant no.6 has siphoned off the funds of the plaintiff company and caused wrongful loss to the plaintiff company.
10 On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 01.06.2024 :-
1. Whether the suit has not been instituted by duly authorized person and the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 is forged and fabricated document?(OPD1 to 6)
2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant no.2 to 5?(OPD1 to D5)
3. Whether defendant no.1 company stands discharge of its liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff in view of the payments made by to defendant no.1, its director of plaintiff company?(OPD1 to 5)
4. Whether Sh. Amit Gupta AR and director of the plaintiff company had the knowledge and agreed for the transfer of money deposited with the defendant no.1 company to the personal account of defendant no.6?(OPD6)
5. Whether the corporate veil of plaintiff company is liable to be lifted?(OPD1 to 6)
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.66,94,587/- as prayed for?(OPP) ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:23:36 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 10 by 42
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for which period?(OPP)
8. Relief.
11. The plaintiff has examined Sh. Amit Gupta, director of plaintiff company as PW-1 in support of their case. PW-1 has tendered his affidavit as Ex PW1/X and proved the following documents:-
Sr. No. Document Exhibit
1 Certified copy of Board Resolution dated Ex. PW-1/1
15.09.2018 (OSR)
[Objected to as
to mode of
proof by
counsels for
defendants]
2 Photocopy of Bank Account Statement of plaintiff Mark PW-1/A
company having entry of Rs. 4 lakhs taken as loan and entry of Rs. 4 lakhs showing the loan amount being returned to the defendant no. 1 3 Photocopy of Bank Statement of Plaintiff Mark PW-1/B Company showing entry of Rs. 13,90,000/- and Rs. 30 lakhs transferred on 13.09.2014 and
02.12.2015 respectively to defendant no. 1 company as "deposits"
4 Photocopy of TDS for the financial year 2015-16 Mark PW-1/C showing the interest amount paid and TDS deposited by defendant no. 1 company 5 Copy of email dated 28.09.2017 sent to defendant Ex. PW-1/2 no. 1 company on its registered email address on (colly) "MCA" website having along its certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act 6 Copy of email dated 21.07.2018 at 16:29 and Ex. PW-1/3 16:35 sent by Mr. Amit Gupta, Director of (colly) plaintiff company to the registered email ID of defendant no. 6 i.e. Mr. Sanjay Goel 7 Copy of email dated 11.08.2018 sent by Mr. Amit Ex. PW-
Gupta, Director of plaintiff company to the 1/4(colly) registered email ID of defendant no. 6 i.e. Mr. Sanjay Goel ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:23:56 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 11 by 42 8 Copy of Board's Report along with annexures and Ex. PW-1/5 notice of AGM and Balance Sheet, profit and loss (colly) (OSR) account and notes to financial statements of plaintiff company for the financial year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 (Page No. 19 to 62) 9 Copy of email dated 10.11.2018 at 17:29 and mail Ex. PW-1/6 dated 12.04.2019 at 13:49 sent by Mr. Amit (colly) Gupta, Director of plaintiff company to the registered email ID of defendant no. 6 i.e. Mr. Sanjay Goel 10 Certified copy of Board Resolution dated Ex. PW-1/7 07.11.2019 issued in favour of Mr. Amit Gupta, (OSR) authorizing him to represent the plaintiff company [Objected to as against all the defendant to mode of proof by counsels for defendants] 11 Copy of complaint dated 08.11.2019 against all Mark PW-1/D the defendants 12 Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act for the Ex. PW-1/8 email dated 21.09.2017, 21.07.2018 (two emails), 11.08.2018, 10.11.2018 and 12.04.2019 PW-1 was cross examined by the counsels for the defendant nos.1 to 5 and defendant no.6 at length. Thereafter PE was closed.
12. Defendant no.6 examined Sh. Sanjay Goel as D6W-1 and has tendered his affidavit as Ex D6W1/A and he relied upon the copy of WS filed on behalf of defendant no.2 in the matter of SAG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Goel & Anr. CS(COMM) 381/2020.
Defendant no.6 was cross examined by counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant no.1 to 5.
13. D6W2 Smt. Meenu Goel wife of Sanjay Goel has endered her affidavit as D6W2/A. She was cross examined by counsel for the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26
16:24:10 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 12 by 42
14. D6W3 Sh. Dhruv, Relationship Manager of ICICI Bank, Pachsheel Park, Delhi is a summoned witness. He produced the bank statement of plaintiff company from the period 04.03.2011 to 11.04.2011 as D6W3/1 and excel sheet as Ex.D6W3/2 respectively. Thereafter defendant no.6 closed his evidence.
15. Defendant no.1 to 5 have examined Sh. Bajrang Lal Periwal as D1W1, who has tendered his affidavit as Ex.D1W1/A and he relied upon the following documents.
Sr. Documents Exhibits
No.
1 Extract of Resolution of defendant no.1 Ex.
company dated 09.06.2019 D1W1/1
2 Copy of letter dated 13.09.2014 Ex.
D1W1/2
(OSR)
3 Copy of the letter dated 02.12.2015 Ex.
D1W1/3
(OSR)
4 Copy of letter dated 15.04.2016 Ex.
D1W1/4
(OSR)
5 Copy of letter dated 16.04.2016 Ex.
D1W1/5
(OSR)
6 Printout of the ledger account of the Ex.D1W1/6
plaintiff company along with bank (colly) (5 statement. pages) 7 Printout of the ledger account of Ex.
defendant no. 6 alongwith bank statement D1W1/7 (colly) (13pages) 8 Affidavit of defendant no.1 under Section Ex.
65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 D1W1/8 ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:24:26 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 13 by 42
D1W1 was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant no.6.
16. Defendant nos. 1 to 5 also summoned a witness Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank. He has produced the bank statement pertaining to Account no.663805012031 in the name of M/s. BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd for the period 01.03.2013 to 31.03.2013 and 01.12.2013 to 31.01.2014 which has been exhibited as Ex. D1W2/A (colly). Thereafter DE was closed.
17. I have heard Sh. Namanveer Singh Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Sh. Govind Rishi, counsel for defendant no.1 to 5 and Mr. Shourya Goel and Mr. Mayank Wadhwa Ld. Counsel for defendant no.6 and have perused the record carefully. I have also carefully gone through the written submissions and the judgments relied upon by the counsels for the parties.
18. Issue wise findings on the basis of pleadings of the parties, evidence lead by them and arguments advanced at bar are as under: -
Issue No. 1:
Whether the suit has not been instituted by duly authorized person and the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 is a forged and fabricated document?(OPD1 to 6)
19. The onus of proving this issue was placed on the defendants. Counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 5 have submitted that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 (Ex.PW-1/1) which does not bear the signature of defendant no.6 . It was ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:24:44 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 14 by 42 also argued that defendant no.6 did not sign the Minutes or the Board Resolution for initiating the present suit. Counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 5 argued that PW-1 Sh. Amit Gupta in paras 11 and 37 of his cross- examination has admitted that the Board Resolution Ex.PW-1/1 does not bear the signature of defendant no.6. It was argued that PW-1 failed to place the attendance sheet of the board meeting dated 15.09.2018 on record and therefore, the present suit has been filed without any authority and consent of the other director i.e. defendant no.6. Further Sh. Amit Gupta fabricated the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 and has marked the signatures of his wife Smt. Vasudha Gupta, who was not even a director on the date of said Board Resolution and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/DA in para 10 of his cross-examination. It was further argued that defendant no.6 in para 23 of his cross-examination confirmed that no such Board Resolution was passed in the board meeting dated 15.09.2018 and he had not signed any document for filing of this suit. It was argued that since defendant no.6 did not consent for filing of the present suit, a single director cannot pass a Resolution and grant himself the authority for instituting legal proceeding against third party.
20. Counsel for defendant no.6 has also argued on the similar lines and have submitted that Sh. Amit Gupta has filed the present suit without any authority or consent of the other director of the plaintiff and has further fabricated the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 in order to gain illegal benefits from the defendants. It was argued that Sh. Amit Gupta has not only filed the present suit illegally but has also fabricated the company records thereby committing criminal breach of trust in respect of his cross examination. It was argued that defendant no.6 did not consent for filing the present suit is also reflected from the emails dated 21.07.2018 Ex.PW-1/3 and email dated 11.08.2018, wherein Sh. Amit Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:25:00 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 15 by 42 Gupta shared the Resolution by circulation for filing the present suit but D-6 never signed the same.
21. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff company through Sh. Amit Gupta had written several emails dated 21.07.2018 (Ex.PW-1/3 colly) and 11.08.2018 (Ex.PW-1/4) to defendant no.6 requesting him to convene a board meeting for initiating the suit for recovery against defendant no.1 company but defendant no.6 deliberately chose to ignore the said emails and also concealed the fact that he had already realized the money of the plaintiff company in his own account. It was argued that all the aforesaid emails have been admitted by defendant no.6 in his affidavit of A/D dated 11.03.2022. It was further argued that on 15.09.2018, a board meeting was convened and defendant no.6 was present in the said meeting. It was argued that defendant no.6 in his affidavit of A/D of documents dated 11.03.2022 admitted the board report along with annexures and notice of AGM and balance sheet, profit and loss account and notes to financial statements of plaintiff company for the Financial Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 were signed by him in the board meeting dated 15.09.2018 and 28.09.2018. Defendant no.6 also identified the signatures at point 'A' on Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) which are the copies of board reports along with the annexures. In his cross examination dated 24.08.2024, he also admitted that he had put his signatures in the presence of officials of NCLT and he never objected to signing of the documents. It was argued that defendant no.6 in his WS has not even mentioned about the non-passing of the Board Resolution in the plaintiff company but has taken a contradictory stand in his evidence. It was argued that as per Section 174 (1) of the Companies Act, the quorum for board meeting dated 15.09.2018 was complete as both the directors were present in the board meeting dated 15.09.2018, wherein Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:25:17 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 16 by 42 Board Resolution Ex.PW-1/1 was passed. It was also argued that as per Rule 25 (1) (c) (1) of The Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, Sh. Amit Gupta being the Chairman of board meeting dated 15.09.2018 of the plaintiff company had appended his signature on to the minutes of board meeting dated 15.09.2018 and Sh. Amit Gupta had put his signature on the extract of Minutes of Meeting dated 15.09.2018 as he wanted certified true copy of the Board Resolution passed at the meeting of the board of directors of plaintiff company on 15.09.2018. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff emphasized that there is no law that true copy of extract of minutes must have two signatures and therefore, the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 is an authentic document. It was also argued that as per Order 29 Rule 1 CPC, the plaint is well maintainable and even if it is assumed that the extract of minutes of board meeting dated 15.09.2018 was defective, the same is a curable defect and the defect, if any, was cured by placing another certified copy of true extract of minutes of board meeting dated 07.11.2019 wherein two of the directors of the plaintiff company had affixed their signatures on to the certified true copy. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. MANU/SC/0002/1997 and Sheth Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Michael Gabrial and Ors MANU/MH/2494/2020 in support of his arguments. It was argued that no ante dated Board Resolutions were passed by the plaintiff company and Smt. Vasudha Gupta, who was appointed as director in June/July 2019 only certified the extract of minutes of board meeting dated 15.09.2018 from the original minute book, being the director of the plaintiff company at the time of filing of amended suit dated 08.01.2020. It was also argued that the said extract of minutes of board meeting dated 15.09.2018 was not allowed to be filed and taken off the record by the court vide its order dated 14.10.2023.
ANIL Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2025.04.26
SISODIA 16:25:36 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 17 by 42
22. Perusal of the record shows that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff company through its director Mr. Amit Gupta. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed certified copy of extract of Resolution passed at the meeting of board of directors on 15.09.2018 (Ex.PW-1/1). By the said Resolution, Sh. Amit Gupta, director of the plaintiff company was authorized to sign, execute all necessary documents, engage a lawyer and to do all such acts and deeds necessary for initiating action against defendant no.1 company for recovery of the loan amount. The copy of the said extract of Resolution has been signed by Sh. Amit Gupta. The crux of the objection raised by the defendants is that the Board Resolution Ex.PW-1/1 is not a valid document as it does not bear the signatures of defendant no.6, who was the other director of the plaintiff company and Mr. Amit Gupta could not have passed a Board Resolution in his own favour.
23. Order 29 Rule 1 CPC provides that in a suit filed by a corporation, any pleadings may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation, who is able to depose to the fact of the case. It is not in dispute that Mr. Amit Gupta is director of the plaintiff company and he was a director of the plaintiff company at the time of filing of the suit. In MTNL Vs. Suman Sharma 2011 (1) AD Del 331, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that when a person who signs and verifies the plaint is a principal officer then it ought to be held that the suit is validly instituted in terms of Order 29 CPC. Hence, it can not be said that the present suit has not been validly instituted.
24. In so far as the authority to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:26:17 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 18 by 42 company is concerned, the plaintiff has placed reliance on the extract of Board Resolution Ex.PW-1/1. According to plaintiff, this Resolution was passed in a board meeting held on 15.09.2018, wherein defendant no.6, who was the other director of the plaintiff company at that time was also present. It is pertinent to note here that defendant no.6 Sanjay Goel in his cross examination has admitted that 2-3 meetings were conducted in the year 2017-18 but he could not remember that these meetings were conducted on 15.09.2018 and 28.09.2018. He further admitted that his signatures were obtained in the meeting on the paper/books of the plaintiff company prepared by the CA. He further identified his signatures at point 'A' on each page of Ex.PW-1/5 (colly). He further deposed that he has no objection to the signing of these documents as he had also not objected to signing of the documents earlier. During the cross-examination of defendant no.6 Sanjay Goel on 24.08.2024, the witness was shown the original minutes of meeting dated 15.09.2018 and his attention was drawn to para 5 of the minutes which were denied by him stating that no such Board Resolution was passed. However, perusal of the said minutes show that in the said meeting, defendant no.6 was present and the financial statements of the Financial Year 2016-17, auditors report, directors report for the financial year ended 31.03.2017 and ratification for reappointment of statutory auditor were passed besides recovery of loan from the defendant no.1 company. As already noted above, defendant no.6 has admitted his signature on the documents Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) without any objection or protest, there is a strong probability in favour of the plaintiff that the Board Resolution authorizing Sh. Amit Gupta to initiate action against defendant no.1 company was also passed. Merely because later on defendant no.6 chose to dispute the said board meeting dated 15.09.2018 will not discredit the same when defendant no.6 has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-1/5 ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:26:33 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 19 by 42 (colly) which were passed in the said meeting and no objection or protest was raised by defendant no.6 regarding the said meeting at the earliest available opportunity.
25. As regards the forgery and fabrication of Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 is concerned, counsel for the defendants have submitted that Sh. Amit Gupta has appended the signature of his wife Smt. Vasudha Gupta on the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018, even when she was not the director of the plaintiff company on that date and the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/DA.
26. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there is no forgery or fabrication in the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018. It was argued that Ex. PW-1/DA was filed along with the amended suit dated 08.01.2020 and the certified copy of the extract of minutes of board meeting dated 15.09.2018 were signed by Smt. Vasudha Gupta, who was appointed as a director in June/July 2019. Perusal of cross examination of PW-1 Sh. Amit Gupta conducted on 07.08.2024 also shows that Ex.PW-1/DA was filed along with the amended suit and it was bearing the signatures of Vasudha Gupta, who was appointed as director of plaintiff in June/July 2019. In the absence of any other evidence to show that the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 was ante dated, there is no reason to believe as to why the plaintiff would forge and fabricate a document which is already available with him.
27. In Sheth Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Michael Gabriel & Ors. (supra) Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed that even if the suit is originally filed by the company without a board resolution, the same is not fatal and it is certainly a curable defect.
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2025.04.26
SISODIA 16:26:50 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 20 by 42
28. In United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person may be expressly authorized to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, came to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
29. In the present case, the suit was filed in the year 2018 and has been pending adjudication since last almost six years and there has been no objection by the plaintiff company to the validity of the institution of the present suit or its continuation. Hence, there is an implied ratification of the filing and signing of the suit by Sh. Amit Gupta by the plaintiff company.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the defendants have failed to discharge the onus cast on them. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 2:
Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant nos. 2 to 5?(OPD1 to D5) Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26 16:27:16 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 21 by 42
31. The onus of proving this issue has been placed on the defendant nos. 1 to 5. Counsel for the defendant nos. 1 to 5 has argued that in the present case, the plaintiff company had given the money to defendant no.1 company and as per settled law, the directors of a company are not personally liable for its debts. It was also argued that the plaint also does not contain any allegation/claim against defendant nos. 2 to 5 nor any evidence has been lead by the plaintiff to show the liability of defendant nos. 2 to 5. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 being the directors of defendant no.1 company were acting in an official capacity and they cannot be held liable for the acts of the defendant no.1 which is an independent juristic person.
32. Counsel for the plaintiff has not been able to show any allegations against defendant nos. 2 to 5 in the plaint nor there is any evidence against defendant nos. 2 to 5 which may establish their liability in their individual capacity.
33. It is well settled law that directors of a company cannot be made personally liable for its acts and omissions. I am supported in my views by the judgment of Mukesh Hans and Anr. Vs. Usha Bhasin and Ors. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2776, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the directors of a company cannot be held personally liable for the acts or omissions of the company which is a separate juristic person.
34. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendant nos. 2 to 5. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendants and against the Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:27:34 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 22 by 42 plaintiff.
Issue no. 4:
Whether Sh. Amit Gupta AR and director of the plaintiff company had the knowledge and agreed for the transfer of money deposited with the defendant no.1 company to the personal account of defendant no.6?(OPD)
35. The onus of proving this issue was placed upon the defendant no.6. Defendant no.6 in his WS has stated that he and Sh. Amit Gupta are close relatives. It was further stated in the WS that Sh. Amit Gupta was having complete knowledge of the transactions and settlement of accounts by defendant no.6 with defendant no.1 company. In support of its case, defendant no.6 has examined himself as D6W1 and has reiterated that he and Sh. Amit Gupta had been withdrawing from the plaintiff company upon mutual understanding, that Sh. Amit Gupta was having complete knowledge about the transaction with defendant no.1 and the present suit has been filed maliciously.
36. Counsel for the defendant no.6 has argued that defendant no.6 during his cross-examination has consistently and categorically stated that Sh. Amit Gupta had the knowledge of transfer of money in his account and this fact has also been corroborated by defendant no.1 in his cross-examination dated 19.10.2024 that defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta both met defendant no.2 at his house in April 2016 for demanding his share of money from defendant no.1 in accordance of which the letter dated 15.04.2016 (Ex.D1W1/4) was also given under the signatures and on the letter head of the plaintiff exactly the same way in which the ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:28:25 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 23 by 42 deposits were made. He further argued that defendant no.1 in his cross examination dated 18.10.2024 irrevocably confirmed that all the transactions have taken place with the consent and knowledge of Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 and both of them used to meet him at his house and in para 10 of the cross-examination, Sh. Amit Gupta had only told defendant no.2 that the money belong to defendant no.6 and defendant no.1 shall return the same as and when defendant no.6 makes a demand. Counsel for the defendant no.6 argued that the entire testimony of Sh. Amit Gupta can be proved as false and unreliable on account of the fact that in his cross-examination dated 06.08.2024 he deposed that he had not conducted any transaction in his personal capacity after 2007 and in para 15 he has deposed that he met defendant no.2 only on 2-3 occasions, whereas the bank statements Ex.D1W2/A of defendant no.1 clearly show that Sh. Amit Gupta made huge transactions of Rs.18 lacs and Rs.3 lacs in his personal capacity with defendant no.1 in the year 2013-14. It was argued that Sh. Amit Gupta has been deposing falsely and has filed the frivolous suit against defendant nos. 1 to 5 despite having complete knowledge and giving consent for the transfer of money into the account of defendant no.6. It was argued that Sh. Amit Gupta has failed to place on record a single document for making such huge amount of the deposits with defendant nos. 1 to 5 and has denied the actual letters executed for transacting the deposits with defendant nos. 1 to 5 which are the only documents available on record to show the transaction in dispute.
37. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has denied having any knowledge of settlement of account between defendant no.1 and defendant no.6. He has argued that defendant no.1 and defendant no.6 have colluded with each other to siphon off the money belonging to the Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:28:50 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 24 by 42 plaintiff company. It was argued that defendant nos. 1 to 5 in their WS have clearly admitted that Sh. Amit Gupta was nowhere in the picture and all the instructions and meetings were carried out by defendant no.6 since beginning and they had never met Sh. Amit Gupta and only defendant no.6 had approached the defendant no.1 company. Defendant nos. 1 to 5 also stated in their WS that deposits were made from the bank account of plaintiff company and only after receipt of instructions from defendant no.6, money was transferred in his personal account instead of the company's account. It was also argued that if Sh. Amit Gupta would have known that Sh. Sanjay Goel had already taken the money in his personal bank account, then Sh. Amit Gupta would have filed the suit against all the defendants from the very beginning and would not have impleaded defendant no.6 after filing of WS by defendant nos. 1 to 5. This fact also shows that Sh. Amit Gupta had no knowledge about the transfer of money to the personal account of defendant no.6 and he never agreed for the said transfer.
38. A careful perusal of WS filed by defendant nos. 1 to 5 would reveal that defendant nos. 1 to 5 have categorically stated in para 6 (x) that all the instructions and meetings were conducted by Sh. Sanjay Goel (defendant no.6) since the beginning and Sh. Amit Gupta, who has filed the present suit was not even in picture and never met the directors of the defendant company. In para 7 of the WS it is again reiterated that defendant no.6 as director of the plaintiff was only interacting with defendant nos. 1 to 5 and he gave written instructions to defendant no.1 to 5 for keeping the money as deposit. In reply to paras 11 to 16 on merits, it has been stated that defendant no.1 has never seen any other person apart from Sh. Sanjay Goel on behalf of the plaintiff and there was no occasion for Sh. Amit Gupta or any other director of the plaintiff Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:29:09 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 25 by 42 company to approach to defendant nos.1 to 5 as the entire amount has already been returned back by defendant no.1 and withdrawn by the Sh. Sanjay Goel, director of the plaintiff company.
39. However, when defendant no.2 Bajrang Lal Periwal appeared in the witness box as D1W1 on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 5, he took a complete somersault in his cross-examination and deposed that both Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Goel had come to his house. He further deposed that defendant no.6 had told him that the money belongs to defendant no.6 and he will take the returns and Sh. Amit Gupta had also said that defendant no.6 was his partner. When the witness was confronted with para 6 (x) of the WS filed by defendant nos. 1 to 5, he deposed that both defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta had come to his house and met him and stated that the aforementioned portion in the WS is incorrect. He further admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that Sh. Amit Gupta was aware about the nature of transactions between defendant no.1 and defendant no.6 and volunteered that there were face to face talks in the presence of Sh. Amit Gupta. On the question as to why defendant no.1 company issued a letter to Sh. Sanjay Goel in his personal capacity when Sh. Sanjay Goel had issued the letter in the capacity of director of plaintiff company, D1W1 replied that Sh. Amit Gupta had told him that the money belonged to Sh. Sanjay Goel and defendant no.1 should return the same to Sh. Sanjay Goel as and when he makes the demand.
When D1W1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant no.6, he deposed that he knew Sh. Sanjay Goel and Sh. Amit Gupta very well and used to participate in the family functions and functions at the temple. He also deposed that in April 2016, Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Goel had come to his office and instructed him to transfer the Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:29:24 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 26 by 42 deposits in personal account of Sh. Sanjay Goel.
40. Perusal of cross-examination of D6W1 Sh. Sanjay Goel would show that he knew the directors of defendant no.1 since 2000 as they were also known to his parents. He admitted that he was having family relations with defendant no.2 Bajrang Lal Periwal. He also admitted that letter dated 15.04.2016 was written by him to defendant no.1 and he had written this letter as there were disputes with Sh. Amit Gupta and he had threatened to remove him from directorship of plaintiff company. He further volunteered that he had requested defendant no.1 to transfer the money in his personal account as this money belongs to him. He further stated that he had mentioned about the dispute in the bank account of the plaintiff company as Sh. Amit Gupta had told him that he will inform the bank and he would not be able to withdraw the money from the bank account of the plaintiff company. He further deposed that dispute between him and Sh. Amit Gupta started orally in March 2016.
41. Admittedly, the money was transferred from the account of plaintiff company to defendant no.1 company vide letters dated 13.09.2014 Ex. D1W1/2 (wrongly typed as 13.09.2024 during the tendering of affidavit by D1W1) and letter dated 02.12.2015 Ex.D1W1/3. Both these letters bear the signatures of Sh. Sanjay Goel as director of the plaintiff company. It is also not in dispute that the money was transferred from the bank account of the plaintiff company to defendant no.1 company as deposit. D1W1 in his cross examination has deposed that in April 2016, Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Goel had come to his office and had instructed him to transfer the deposit in the personal account of Sh. Sanjay Goel. However, this statement appears to be false on the face of it as defendant no.6 Sanjay Goel in his cross-
ANIL Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2025.04.26
SISODIA 16:29:51 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 27 by 42 examination has deposed that disputes between him and Sh. Amit Gupta started orally from March/April 2016. If the dispute had already started between Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 Sanjay Goel, there was no possibility of Sh. Amit Gupta approaching DW2 Bajrang Lal Periwal and informing him that the money belongs to the defendant no.6 and instructed him to transfer the same in personal account of defendant no.6. Similarly, the deposition of defendant no.6 Sanjay Goel that he had mentioned about the dispute in the bank account of the plaintiff company in the letter dated 15.04.2016 as Sh. Amit Gupta had threatened to inform the bank and he would not be able to withdraw the money from the bank appears to be a blatant lie as no such plea has been taken by defendant no.6 in his WS. In fact, there would have been no occasion to take a false plea in the letter Ex.D1W1/4 by defendant no.6, if Sh. Amit Gupta had already told defendant no.2 that the money belonged to defendant no.6 and the same be returned to him.
42. Similarly, this court does not find testimony of D1W1 Bajrang Lal Periwal to be reliable on the aspect that both Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Goel had met him on various occasions and Sh. Amit Gupta had informed him that the money belong to Sh. Sanjay Goel and the same should be transferred in his personal account as and when demanded by him as his statement is contrary to the pleas taken by defendant nos. 1 to 6 in their WS. Admittedly, there is no other document on record to show that Sh. Amit Gupta had the knowledge about the transfer of the deposit in the personal account of the defendant no.6 Sh. Sanjay Goel or that he had consented for the same.
The mere fact that Sh. Amit Gupta had dealt with defendant no.1 in past in his personal capacity does not establish that he had the knowledge or had consented for transfer of the deposit with defendant ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:30:06 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 28 by 42 no.1 to the personal account of defendant no.6 Sh. Sanjay Goel.
43. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that defendant no.6 has failed to discharge the onus cast on him. The issue is accordingly decided against the defendant no.6 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no.3:
Whether defendant no.1 company stands discharge of its liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff in view of the payments made by to defendant no.1, its director of plaintiff company?(OPD1 to 5)
44. The onus of proving this issue has been cast on the defendant no.1 to 5. Counsel for defendant no.1 to 5 has argued that defendant no.6 has repeatedly admitted in his cross-examination that he and Sh. Amit Gupta had met with defendant no.2 at his house in April 2016 for demanding his share of money from defendant no.1 in accordance with letter dated 15.04.2016 Ex.D1W1/4. It was also argued that the defendant no.2 during cross examination on 18.10.2024 also confirmed that all transactions had taken place with the consent and knowledge of Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6. Defendant no.2 also placed on record confirmation of accounts dated 01.04.2017 Ex.D1W1/6 issued by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff which have not been disputed by the plaintiff till the filing of the present suit. He further argued that the testimony of PW-1 Amit Gupta is false and unreliable as he deposed that he had not conducted any transaction with defendant no.1 in his personal capacity after 2007 and had met defendant no.2 only on 2-3 occasions ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:30:21 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 29 by 42 whereas bank statement of defendant no.1 Ex.D1W2/A clearly show that Sh. Amit Gupta had transaction with defendant no.1 in his personal capacity in the year 2013-14. It was argued that Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 have been deposing falsely and have filed false suit against defendant no.1 to 5. Counsel for defendant no.1 to 5 further argued that Sh. Amit Gupta also deposed falsely that he had been approaching defendant no.1 to 5 orally and requesting for providing the interest and making personal visit to the office of defendant no.1, whereas in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 he admitted that it was the first time on 28.09.2017 that he demanded money from defendant no.1 and further that he never demanded money from defendant no.2 to 5. It was further argued that the plaintiff company has only two directors, who were close relatives and when both of them had directed defendant no.1 to transfer the money of plaintiff company into the account of defendant no.6 being his share money, then it is inequitable and unlawful to fix any liability on defendant no.1 more particularly when the records clearly establish that defendant no.1 had already paid the entire amount along with interest to defendant no.6 and this fact has also been admitted by defendant no.6 in his cross- examination.
45. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendants have not been able to establish that Sh. Amit Gupta had visited the office of defendant no.1 along with Sh. Sanjay Goel and had informed defendant no.2 to transfer the deposit in the personal account of defendant no.6 as it was his share of money. He argued that perusal of the documents would show that the deposits was made by defendant no.6 vide letters dated 13.09.2014 (Ex.D1W1/2) and 02.12.2015 (Ex.D1W1/3) in the capacity of director of the plaintiff company. He ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:30:34 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 30 by 42 further argued that the letter dated 15.04.2016 Ex.D1W1/4 was also issued by defendant no.6 on the letter head of plaintiff company in the capacity of director of the plaintiff company. It was argued that if defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta had already told defendant no.2 that the money belonged to the share of defendant no.6 then why defendant no.6 did not mention this fact in the letter dated 15.04.2016 and instead took a false plea that the plaintiff was having some disputes with their banks and therefore, the amount should be transferred in his ledger account with defendant no.1 company. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that the collusion of defendants is also apparent from the fact that defendant no.1 issued the letter dated 16.04.2016 Ex.D1W1/5 to defendant no.6 in his personal capacity and on his personal address instead of issuing the said letter on the address of the plaintiff company. Not only this, the confirmation of accounts Ex. D1W1/6 and D1W1/7 were also issued in the name of defendant no.6 at his personal address instead of issuing the same on the address of the plaintiff company. He also argued that both defendant no.1 and defendant no.6 did not disclose to the plaintiff that the amount of deposit had already been transferred in the account of defendant no.6 despite Sh. Amit Gupta writing emails to them.
46. As already held in the conclusion of issue no. 4 herein above, defendants have failed to establish even by preponderance of probability that Sh. Amit Gupta had the knowledge and agreed for transfer of money deposited with defendant no.1 company to the personal account of defendant no.6. Hence, the arguments advanced by the counsel for defendant nos. 1 to 5 that Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 had met with defendant no.2 and had informed him of the fact that the money in the deposit was a share of defendant no.6 is without any substance. At ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:30:49 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 31 by 42 the cost of the repetition, it may be noticed that DW-6 in his cross examination dated 24.08.2024 has admitted that disputes between him and Sh. Amit Gupta had started in March/April 2016. Hence, in this situation, there was no possibility of Sh. Amit Gupta accompanying Sh. Sanjay Goel to meet defendant no.2 in April 2016 for demanding his share of money from defendant no.1.
47. Perusal of the letters dated 13.09.2014, 02.12.2015 and letter dated 15.04.2016 (Ex.D1W1/2 to D1W1/4) shows that these letters have been written by defendant no.6 in the capacity of director of plaintiff company on the letterhead of plaintiff company. It is also not in dispute that the deposits were made with defendant no.1 from the bank account of the plaintiff company and in the name of the plaintiff company. The defendant no.1 company being a NBFC registered with RBI is governed by the RBI Act and Rules framed thereunder. Once the deposits had been taken by defendant no.1 in the name of the plaintiff company, it was the duty of defendant no.1 to have returned the deposits in the name of the plaintiff company in order to constitute a statutory discharge of its liability. Even if, defendant no.6, in the capacity of director of the plaintiff company sought the transfer of deposit amount in his personal account, it was obligatory upon the defendant no.1 to have exercised due diligence and asked defendant no.6 to provide a Board Resolution before transferring the deposit amount in the account of defendant no.6.
48. Doubt is also created about the bona fide of defendant no.1 when instead of informing the plaintiff company about transfer of deposit from its account, defendant no.1 wrote a letter dated 16.04.2016 Ex.D1W1/5 to the defendant no.6 on his residential address about the said transfer. In ordinary course of business, defendant no.1 ought to have informed the ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:31:05 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 32 by 42 depositor (i.e. plaintiff company) about any transaction in its account. Even if defendant no.1 was to inform director of the plaintiff company, the letter should have been addressed to the office address of the defendant and not the residential address of one of the directors. Similarly, defendant no.1 has issued confirmation of account Ex.D1W1/6 and D1W1/7 to defendant no.6 at his residential address instead of sending the same to the plaintiff at his registered office.
49. Not only this, a perusal of paras 7 and 8 of cross-examination of defendant no.2 Bajrang Lal Periwal shows that he has admitted that all the transactions with the defendant company had taken place with the consent and knowledge of Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Goel. This witness has shown the audacity to deny the contents of WS filed by defendant no.1 to 5 which is also supported by the affidavit of defendant no.2 himself besides other defendants. Further, defendant no.2 had stated in para 9 of his cross examination that defendant no.2 had instructed to transfer the amount kept as deposit in his personal account and Sh. Amit Gupta had not said any thing in this regard. He also deposed that there is no documentary evidence to show that Sh. Amit Gupta was aware about the nature of transaction between defendant no.1 and defendant no.6. Thus, the deposition of defendant no.2 is not only contradictory to his own pleadings but is also unreliable and not worthy of credit.
50. The defendant no.2 in his cross examination dated 18.10.2024 has admitted that the email ID of defendant no.1 company as mentioned on the website of MCA is [email protected]. He also deposed that the said email is still working. Although, he denied that he did not receive any email from Sh. Amit Gupta with regard to the repayment of company's money, plaintiff has proved on record the email dated ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:31:17 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 33 by 42 28.09.2017 at 03:13 as Ex.PW-1/2 which belies the statement of defendant no.2 Bajrang Lal Periwal. The collusion between defendant no.2 and 6 becomes also apparent from the fact that neither defendant no.2 replied to the email written by Sh. Amit Gupta on behalf of the plaintiff company demanding the payment of the deposit amount nor defendant no.6 replied to the email dated 21.07.2018 Ex.PW-1/3 asking him to convene a board meeting for filing the recovery case against defendant no.1.
51. Defendant no.1 being a registered NBFC is governed by RBI Act 1934 and it was bound to transfer the amount of the deposit in the account of plaintiff company as per Section 45QB (4) of RBI Act in order to constitute full discharge of its liability in respect of the deposit. However, in the present case, defendant no.1 has failed to repay the deposit amount to the plaintiff company and has wrongly paid the amount to defendant no.6 in his personal ledger without any proper authorization by the plaintiff company. Hence, it cannot be said that defendant no.1 has discharged its liability. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 5:
Whether the corporate veil of plaintiff company is liable to be lifted?(OPD1 to 6)
52. The onus of proving this issue has been placed on the defendant. Counsels for defendant nos. 1 to 6 have vehemently argued that PW-1 Amit Gupta in his cross examination dated 07.08.2024 has deposed that directors of the plaintiff company were not withdrawing any remuneration nor dividend from the plaintiff company and all the money ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:31:34 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 34 by 42 earned by the plaintiff company was directly being invested for the growth of the plaintiff company and plaintiff company was being run and operated entirely on the basis of Resolutions passed in the company. PW-1 Amit Gupta also admitted that plaintiff company was being run completely inside the family of Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6. It was argued that defendant no.6 in his cross-examination has also deposed that plaintiff company was being run on the basis of oral and mutual understanding of directors and they were withdrawing money directly from the company according to their respective shares. It was argued that Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 were running the company as family company or quasi partnership and were pursuing fraudulent activities in the company and the company was being used for gaining illegal monetary gains from the third party. It was further argued that bank statements of plaintiff company from 2008 to 2023 would clearly reveal that Sh. Amit Gupta had withdrawn more than 3.7 crores in the span of 15 years from the plaintiff company. PW-1 Amit Gupta in the connected matter {(CS (COMM) No. 1432/2020} also deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that he and Sh. Sanjay Goel used to withdraw money from the company from time to time as per revenue of the company. It was submitted that the plaintiff company was being run as quasi partnership between Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6. It was argued that in view of inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 about the functioning and operation of plaintiff company, it is necessary to lift the corporate veil of the plaintiff company. In support of their arguments, counsel for the defendants have also relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) NAS Vs Delhi Guest House Services Private & Ors.
AIR 2023 (NOC99) 39.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26
16:31:50 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 35 by 42
(ii) Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors vs Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead)Thr.Lrs.(2005) 11SCC 314.
(iii) Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd.& Ors (2014) 9 SCC 407.
53. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there is no material on record warranting the lifting of corporate veil. It was argued that the defendants have failed to establish that Sh. Amit Gupta had knowledge about the fact that the deposit made with defendant no.1 company was being transferred into the personal account of defendant no.6. It was argued that defendants have also not been able to adduce any evidence to establish that the plaintiff company was being used and fraudulent activities or for gaining illegal monetary benefits from the third parties. He has argued that defendant no.6 being a director in the plaintiff company since the beginning was well aware about its functioning and if the plaintiff company was not being run in accordance with the provisions of law, he had ample time and opportunity to take legal remedies. However, defendant no.6 did not take any such action and it was only after the dispute arose between Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 that he filed a petition before NCLT in the year 2017 which was dismissed by the New Delhi bench of NCLT vide its order dated 30.11.2017. Defendant no.6 preferred an appeal against the order of NCLT before the NCLAT and the said appeal was also dismissed by Hon'ble NCLAT. It was argued that defendant no.6 in para 3 of preliminary objection and submissions of WS has admitted filing of petition before NCLT and appeal before NCLAT and their dismissal.
54. The doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" stands as an exception to the principle that a company is a legal entity separate and Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.04.26 SISODIA 16:32:05 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 36 by 42 distinct from its shareholders with its own legal rights and obligations. It seeks to disregard the separate personality of the company and attribute the acts of the company to those who are allegedly in the direct control of its operation. The doctrine of piercing of corporate veil allows the court to disregard the separate legal personality of a company and impose liability upon the persons exercising real control over the said company. It should be applied in scenarios wherein it is evident that the company was a mere camouflage or sham deliberately created by the persons exercising control over the said company for the purpose of avoiding liability. The intent of piercing the veil must be to remedy a wrong by persons controlling the company. Its application would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The doctrine of piercing the veil to be exercised sparingly by the courts. For piercing of the veil, mere ownership and control is not a sufficient ground.
55. In the present case, the defendants have sought for lifting of corporate veil on the ground that the plaintiff company is being run as a quasi partnership/family company as both the directors of the plaintiff are closely related to each other. It has also been argued that the directors of the plaintiff company were pursuing fraudulent activities and were using the company for gaining illegal and monetary benefits from the third parties. The attention of the court was also drawn to the bank statements of the plaintiff company produced by D6W3 Mr. Dhruv from ICICI Bank, Panchsheel Park which were exhibited as D6W3/1 and D6W3/2. From the statements of the account, it was pointed out that Sh. Amit Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Goel, directors of the plaintiff company were withdrawing the amount as per their mutual understanding without any Board Resolutions.
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL
KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26
16:32:18 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 37 by 42
56. However, the defendants have failed to point out that the plaintiff company was merely being used as a camouflage or was being used to defraud its creditors. No substantive evidence has been produced by the defendants in this regard. It is also pertinent to note here that defendant no.6 being the director of the plaintiff company had been participating in the business activities of the company since its inception. Defendant no.6 has admitted in his cross examination that he along with Sh. Amit Gupta used to look after all the affairs of the plaintiff company since its inception. He also admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that he was withdrawing the profits in the plaintiff company in accordance with his shares. It is surprising that defendant no.6 did not file any complaint against the alleged illegal activity of the plaintiff company since 2007 till 2017 when disputes arose between him and Sh. Amit Gupta when he filed company petition before NCLT which was dismissed by the NCLT vide order dated 30.11.2017 and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by Hon'ble NCLAT. A perusal of the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by NCLT would show that Hon'ble NCLT in para 12 observed that no ground of oppression or mismanagement could be inferred from the pleadings on record. This shows that defendant no.6 could not produce any evidence of mismanagement even before Hon'ble NCLT just like he has failed to do so before this court.
57. In view of the evidence on record and the discussion herein above, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case which requires lifting of the corporate veil. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.6: ANIL Digitally signed
by ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2025.04.26
SISODIA 16:32:31 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 38 by 42 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.66,94,587/- as prayed for?(OPP)
58. The onus of proving this issue has been placed on the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that it is an admitted case by the defendants that plaintiff company through its former director Sh. Sanjay Goel (defendant no.6) had deposited Rs. 13,90,000/- on 13.09.2014 with defendant no.1 on interest and again Rs. 30 lacs were deposited with defendant no.1 vide letter dated 02.12.2015. It was argued that defendant no.1 illegally and without the consent and knowledge of plaintiff company had transferred the deposits in the personal ledger of defendant no.6. Defendant no.1 also failed to pay the deposit amount to the plaintiff company despite email dated 28.09.2017 Ex.PW-1/2. It was argued that plaintiff is entitled for the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 18% per annum which comes to the suit amount.
59. Per contra, defendant nos. 1 to 5 has argued that plaintiff has not filed a single Board Resolution to carry out financial transactions in the company. The suit is bad for lack of authority of Sh. Amit Gupta and the plaint is liable to be dismissed due to contradictory statements of Sh. Amit Gupta and defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta had complete knowledge about the transfer of money in the account of defendant no.6.
60. Counsel for the defendant no.6 has argued that the amount was transferred from defendant no.1 company to the personal ledger of defendant no.6 as the money belong to the share of defendant no.6 and Sh. Amit Gupta had complete knowledge about it. It was argued that the suit has been filed by Sh. Amit Gupta mala fide to harass the defendants.
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR
SISODIA
KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26
16:32:45 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 39 by 42
61. First of all it is admitted by defendant no.6 that plaintiff company had deposited a sum of Rs. 43,90,000/- with defendant no.1 company through defendant no.6 from the account of the plaintiff company. It is also not in dispute that the defendant no.1 company transferred a sum of Rs. 46,55,992/- (inclusive of interest) to the personal ledger of defendant no.6 on 16.04.2016.
62. In view of the findings given on issues no.3 and 4 herein above, it is now established that Sh. Amit Gupta did not have the knowledge nor he had consented for the transfer of the money deposited with defendant no.1 company to the personal account of defendant no.6. Similarly, it has been held that defendant no.1 company does not stand discharge from its liability merely by paying the deposit amount along with interest in the personal account of defendant no.6. Further, defendant no.6 has not filed any evidence on record to show that he was entitled for the deposit amount with the defendant no.1 company or that it was his share of money. Defendant no.6 has neither filed his annual income tax returns nor filed any annual returns of the plaintiff company to show that he was entitled for the aforesaid deposit amount held by defendant no.1 on behalf of the plaintiff company. Hence, defendant no.6 is also liable to return the amount which has been wrongfully transferred by defendant no.1 company in his personal account instead of transferring the same in the account of plaintiff company.
63. The claim of interest by the plaintiff company @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount is also not established by the plaintiff. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it is established that defendant no.1 company had never agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26 16:32:56 +0530 CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 40 by 42 deposits made by the plaintiff company and there is agreement between the parties to this effect.
64. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is only entitled for recovery of Rs. 46,55,992/- from defendant no.1 and defendant no.6 jointly as well as severally. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no.7:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on the aforesaid amount, if so, at what rate and for which period?(OPP)
65. The onus of proving this issue has been cast on the plaintiff. Although plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum but he has not lead any evidence on this aspect.
66. Perusal of the record however shows that deposits made by the plaintiff with defendant no.1 company had earned interest @ 9% per annum. Even the statement D1W1 Bajrang Lal Periwal states that interest @ 9% per annum was given on the deposits for the year ending 2014.
67. In Central Bank of India Vs Ravindra & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 367, it was held that award of interest, pendente lite and post decree is discretionary with the courts as it is essentially governed by Section 34 of the CPC de-hors the contract.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date:
SISODIA 2025.04.26
16:33:10 +0530
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 41 by 42
68. Having regard to the lending rate of interest of the bank for the commercial transactions and the fact that defendant no.1 company had accepted the deposits @ 9% per annum, this court is of the view that interest @ 9% per annum is reasonable and would serve the ends of restitutive justice. In the circumstances, plaintiff is held entitled to simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief.
69. In view of my findings on the issues hereinabove, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 and 6. The suit is dismissed qua defendant no.2 to 5.
A decree of Rs. 46,55,992/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 and defendant no.6 jointly and severally. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to simple interest on the aforesaid amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Parties shall bear their own cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due
Digitally signed by
compliance. ANIL ANIL KUMAR
KUMAR SISODIA
Date: 2025.04.26
SISODIA 16:33:21 +0530
(ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-04
Central/Delhi
Announced in open court
on 26.04.2025
CS (COMM) 525/2018 M/s. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. BKR Capital Pvt.Ltd & Ors Page No 42 by 42