Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Chanana vs Kushal K. Rana on 30 June, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. GUNJAN GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
CS DJ 7540/16
SHRI SANJEEV CHANANA
S/o Shri I.K. Chanana,
R/o D-37, Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi. .... Plaintiff
VERSUS
SHRI KUSHAL K. RANA
S/o Shri Baldev Singh Rana,
R/o 38, Third Floor,
Uday Park,
New Delhi. ....Defendant
Date of Institution : 03.05.2010
Date reserved for judgement : 29.05.2025
Date of judgement : 30.06.2025
DECISION : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. The present is a suit for declaration & perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF Brief facts of the case, as set out in the plaint, are as follows-
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -2- 2.1 The plaintiff who is in the business of construction and real estate under the name & style of M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd, was facing financial difficulties due to recession in the real estate market and the defendant who is a financer had been lending money to the plaintiff of and on interest basis, which accumulated to Rs.65,00,000/-. 2.2 The plaintiff was not able to repay the loan and had informed the defendant that he will repay the loan amount in the installments, once he is able to come out in his financial difficulty.
2.3 The defendant extended threats to life of the plaintiff and his family members.
2.4 On 08.04.2009 at about 1.30 pm, the defendant along with one lady namely Bhavna Pandey and two well built unknown persons came to the office of the plaintiff situated at 14, Niti Bagh, New Delhi and forcibly entered his office and started abusing the plaintiff in a filthy language. The defendant was carrying a pistol with him and other two persons were carrying sharp edged weapons and told that they belong to the underworld. 2.5 The defendant pointed a pistol on the plaintiff and told him 'AAJ TUJHE JAAN SE MAAR DUNGA ... YA TOU MERE PUREY PAISE DE DE VARNA JO BOLTA HU KAR DE'.
2.6 The plaintiff requested him to give him some time to arrange the money. The defendant declined his request by using filthy language and the two persons accompanying the CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -3- defendant caught hold of the plaintiff and thrashed him with kicks and blows. The defendant and his accomplices took the plaintiff to a room and did not allow the staff members to interfere. The defendant threatened the staff members by pointing a pistol towards them and threatening to kill them. He locked the room from inside and threatened the plaintiff by saying 'JYADA SHOR MACHAYA TOH ZINDAGI BHAR KE LIYE AWAZ BAND KAR DENGE'. Placing the pistol on the temple of the plaintiff, the defendant asked him to sign some blank papers. The lady accompanying the defendant told the plaintiff her name as Bhavna Pandey and said 'JANTA HAI MUJHE, BHAVNA PANDEY NAAM HAI MERA.. KAYI LOGO KO RAPE CASES MAI FASSA CHUKI HU.. TUNEY INN KAGZON PAR SIGN NA KIYE TO ABHI APNE KAPDE FAAD LUNGI AUR POLICE KO BULA KAR RAPE KARNE KI KOSHISH MEIN BAND KARVA DUNGI,FIR SADEGA ZINDGI BHAR JAIL MAI'.
2.7 The defendant and his accomplice created terror in the mind of the plaintiff leading him to think that he would be killed and thus he agreed to sign where ever the defendant wanted. Left as no option, the plaintiff signed the papers produced by the defendant whether blank or otherwise without knowing the contents of the same. The defendant and his accomplices also forced the plaintiff to issue a post dated cheque of Rs.20,00,000/-.
2.8 After getting the paper signed, the defendant while leaving said 'BOLA THA TUJHE MERE SE PANGA NA CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -4- LE...., TUJHE AUR TERE PARIVAR VALON KO JAAN SE MARVA DUNGA AUR PATA BHI NAHI CHALEGA....
UNDERWORLD SE DIRECT CONNECTION HAIN MERA'. Terrified the plaintiff could not gather courage to go to police. After the father of the plaintiff came back from pilgrimage, the plaintiff narrated him the entire incident and on his advice a police complaint was lodged with the SHO, P.S. Defence Colony on 10.04.2009 vide DD No. 34B. However, the defendant being an influential person and being politically well connected, no FIR was registered on the complaint of the plaintiff. 2.9 In the month of September 2009, when the plaintiff and his father were out of Delhi, some police officials from Himachal Pradesh came to their residence and informed that some FIR has been registered in PS Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh by the defendant and the plaintiff is to be arrested. 2.10 On reading the contents of the FIR, the plaintiff was shocked to know that the defendant has misused one of the blank documents which he got signed under threat on 08.04.2009 and manipulated and forged an antedated Confirmation-cum- Agreement-cum-Receipt of 27.03.2009. Copy of the said document was provided to the plaintiff by Himachal Pradesh police.
2.11 No such document was ever signed voluntarily by the plaintiff and signatures on the same were obtained as a result of coercion under the above circumstances and thus is hit by section 15 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2.12 Because of the inaction of the police, the plaintiff CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -5- sent another complaint dated 07.12.2009 to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Hauz Khas, Delhi praying for necessary action, however, no action was again taken. 2.13 On the failure of the police to register FIR, the plaintiff filed the complaint before Ld. Magistrate, New Delhi to register FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2.14 Meanwhile, the plaintiff also received a notice from one Mr. Puneet Mittal, Advocate claiming to have been appointed as Arbitrator on the basis of the alleged agreement dated 27.03.2009. The photocopy of the alleged agreement was provided by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was informed that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration proceedings as the document is a nullity.
2.15 The plaintiff never received any notice for appointment of the Arbitrator.
2.16 The document dated 27.03.2009 is illegal, null and void in the eyes of law as the plaintiff never consented to any such transaction as the signatures were taken on blank documents by the defendant and his accomplices under threat and coercion by putting gun on the temple of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff has all apprehensions that if the agreement in question is not declared as null and void and is left outstanding, it will cause serious injury to the plaintiff.
2.17 Hence the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for a decree of declaration that the document dated 27.03.2009 is null and void and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the Arbitrator Sh. Puneet Mittal from CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -6- proceedings with the arbitration proceedings titled as Kushal K Rana vs. Sanjeev Chanana and also for compensation of Rs.3,00,100/-.
3. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT The defendant filed his Written Statement denying the averments in the plaint and stating as follows :
3.1 The present suit is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause agreed between the parties and thus it is only the Arbitrator who would rule on its own jurisdiction.
3.2 The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has filed the suit to delay the arbitration proceedings pending before the Arbitrator. 3.3 The suit is not maintainable as per section 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy before Ld. Arbitrator. The plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purposes of court fees as the plaintiff has not valued the suit for the purposes of relief of injunction and has not paid the court fees upon them.
3.4 The suit is not maintainable as the suit is filed only for declaration and the consequential relief has not been sought. The plaintiff seeks the declaration qua a document which is a receipt of Rs.6,10,00,000/- and therefore, this court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -7- 3.5 The suit is not maintainable as the relief of compensation is devoid of substance and there is no averment in the plaint as to on what basis, the said relief has been sought.
3.6 The suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of Court Fees and Jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has not valued the suit for the purposes of relief of injunction. For the purposes of declaration, the plaintiff was liable to pay court fees on Rs. 6,10,00,000/- whereas only a fixed court fee of Rs. 200 is paid.
3.7 The father of the plaintiff Mr. I.K. Chanana is still a Director of the company M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd and has been shown as such in the Register of Companies.
3.8 The plaintiff has taken a sum of Rs.6,10,00,000/- from the defendant and had also agreed to sell the properties i.e. (1) D-5, Panchsheel Enclave, Ground Floor, New Delhi, (2) Plot No. 6, Rathore Nursery, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan and also (3) Chanana Farm at Village Jageshu, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. 3.9 The plaintiff despite receipt of the money from the defendant has not honoured his words and has cheated the defendant and accordingly the defendant invoked the arbitration clause of the agreement dated 27.03.2009 and appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -8- the parties. However, the plaintiff filed the present suit to defeat the right of the defendant.
3.10 The plaintiff has leveled false allegations and has filed false case against the defendant to defeat the right of the defendant and not to pay the amount of the defendant.
3.11 The plaintiff has not denied the factum of his signatures on the confirmation cum agreement cum receipt dated 27.03.2009 and even there is no averment that the plaintiff had not taken any amount of Rs.6,10,00,000/- from the defendant. Further, the plaint is silent with regard to the sale of the property as mentioned in the receipt dated 27.03.2009 and hence the present suit is completely bogus and without any basis.
3.12 The plaintiff had issued a cheque of Rs. 40 lakhs to the defendant in discharge of his legal liability and no cheque of Rs 20 lakh was issued by him. The plaintiff is now is raising a false averment to defeat the claim of the defendant.
3.13 After executing the document and receiving huge amount from the defendant, the plaintiff's intention had become malafide and he is backing out from his agreement. It is averred that if at all there was a blank document signed by him, he ought to have taken steps seeking appropriate remedy under law at the earliest. However, no such steps were taken by the plaintiff and it CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana -9- appears that the plaintiff is taking steps only after the institution of the proceedings taken by the defendant against him and the suit is a counter blast to the proceedings taken by the defendant. The agreement dated 27.03.2009 is a genuine and valid document and the plaintiff is under an obligation to comply the same.
3.14 In view of the Arbitration Clause in the agreement, the parties are bound and governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Thus, the issue of genuineness of the agreement can only be decided by the Arbitrator.
4. ISSUES On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dt 18.10.2014 :
1. Whether the present suit is not maintainable and is barred under law? OPD
2. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration that agreement dated 27.03.2009 is liable to be declared as null and void? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP
5. Relief.
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 10 -
5. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE Plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents :
(i) Copy of complaint dated 24.09.2009- Mark A
(ii) Copy of FIR - Mark B
(iii) Copy of Confirmation-cum Agreement-cum Receipt
- Mark C
(iv). Copy of complaint dated 10.04.2009 - Mark D
(v). Copy of complaint dated 07.12.2009- Mark E. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant at length and discharged.
6. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE The defendant in support of his case examined himself as DW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit EX.DW1/A and relied upon the copy of FIR No. 59/2009 along with complete charge sheet as Ex. DW1/1 (colly).
7. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF :
7.1 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the defendant had got the agreement cum receipt dated 27.03.2009 Ex.PW1/D1, executed by the plaintiff, by exercising coercion upon him. It is submitted that since the defendant had got the agreement cum receipt signed by the plaintiff by putting a gun CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 11 -
on his head, the plaintiff could at best prove his case by circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence can be available since incident happened in closed room.
7.2 It is submitted that as per the Ex.PW1/D1 the plaintiff had received Rs.6,10,00,000/- from the defendant in consideration of the sale of 3 properties mentioned therein. It is argued that it is very unlikely that a person would pay such a huge amount of Rs.6,10,00,000/-, even before the execution of the sale deeds qua the properties which are agreed to be sold in an agreement to sell. He submits that it is not possible that any person would pay the complete consideration amount, even without getting the agreement to sell registered or doing any documentation in this regard and further not even having a sale deed registered in his favour. Though the defendant is in the business of real estate yet he did not even ask for original or photocopies of the ownership documents.
7.3 It is argued that there is nothing on record to show that defendant even approached the plaintiff within 30 days of the execution of the said document, for the purposes of execution of the sale deed, as mentioned in the agreement cum receipt. It is further argued that there is no evidence produced by the defendant to show that the defendant had paid the amount of Rs.6,10,00,000/- to the plaintiff. He submits that no question was put to the plaintiff in the cross examination in this regard despite specific statement in the affidavit of evidence that the plaintiff never received any payment. He further CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 12 -
submits that even a question was put to the defendant during his cross-examination as to whether the said amount was paid to the plaintiff in the presence of any witness to which the defendant replied that he does not remember the same. It is further argued that in his cross-examination the defendant stated that he does not remember the details of the payments made and has also failed to produce any evidence to show that he had the resources to make the payment of Rs.6,10,00,000/- in cash and has also failed to produce any witness in whose presence the alleged transaction took place. He submits that even a criminal case was filed against the plaintiff by the defendant with respect to the same transaction and the plaintiff was acquitted after trial.
7.4 It is further argued that the defendant has not put any suggestion to the plaintiff in the cross-examination that the document was executed by the plaintiff voluntarily. 7.5 It is further argued that the plaintiff has categorically stated in his testimony that none of the properties as mentioned in Ex.PW1/D1 are owned by the plaintiff and even the defendant has failed to rebut the said statement. It is further argued that on a preponderance of probability the plaintiff has successfully proved that the Ex.PW1/D1 was executed by the defendant by exercising coercion. As to the issue of court fees, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that Article 17 (3) of the II Schedule of the Court Fees Act would apply in the present case, as per which only a fixed court fees is CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 13 -
required to be paid on a simplicitor suit of declaration whether no consequential relief has been prayed.
7.6 As to the issue of bar of law, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the ground on which the bar of law was raised as a defence by the defendant was existence of arbitration clause in the agreement cum receipt Ex.PW1/D1. He submits that in the present case, serious allegations of coercion and fraud had been made by the plaintiff and as per the judgment in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. (2021) 4 SCC 713, such a matter cannot be referred to an Arbitrator. It is further argued that in the said judgment, the court had taken note of the judgment in Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710, wherein it was held that the civil courts are required to see if a plea of fraud permeates to the entire contract and the arbitration agreement referring to void. It is submitted that since the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the defendant had got the documents signed by putting a gun on his head and the same was not voluntarily executed by the plaintiff, the same permeates to the entire contract and renders it void. It is further argued that even otherwise the plea of arbitration is to be raised at the very first instance, which has not been done in the present case. He submits that the defendant has pleaded that an arbitration is already pending, however, it has been stayed by this court and even the invocation of the said arbitration was in violation of provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act as no CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 14 -
notice of arbitration as per section 21 of the Act was served upon the plaintiff.
8. ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT :
8.1 Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that plaintiff has failed to prove his case that the defendant had threatened him to sign the document Ex.PW1/D1 by putting a gun on his head. It is submitted that the plaintiff has mentioned in his pleadings that a lady namely Alka was present at the time of the transaction and even he has mentioned her name in the list of witnesses but has failed to examine her as a witness. He submits that since the plaintiff avers exercise of coercion and fraud in the present case, the burden of proof upon the plaintiff is comparable to the burden of proof upon a party in a criminal case. 8.2 It is further argued that the plaintiff has given contradictory versions in his different complaints dated 10.04.2009 & 07.12.2009 and his affidavit of evidence and statements made in cross-examination. It is submitted that in the complaint dated 10.04.2009, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant Kushal K Rana had come along with a lady Bhavna Pandey and two unknown persons at his office at Niti Bagh, whereas, in his complaint dated 07.09.2009, he states that the defendant along with Bhavna Pandey and four muscles men of Kotla came to his office at Niti Bagh. Howeveer, in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1, the plaintiff in para 8 states CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 15 -
that the defendant along with one lady Bhavna Pandey and two other persons visited him and again in his cross-examination, he stated that the defendant was accompanied with 3 or 4 persons and one lady. He submits that the said contradiction show that the plaintiff had concocted a false and frivolous story just to wriggle out of the contract.
8.3 It is further argued that the plaintiff has stated in his cross-examination that a Receptionist namely Alka and a peon namely Himraj or Mr. Heera were present in his office at the time of transaction, yet he has failed to examine them. 8.4 It is further argued that it has come on record that even previously the defendant had purchased the property of the plaintiff at Uday Park and admittedly the entire amount of consideration was paid to the plaintiff before the execution of sale documents. He submits that the plaintiff had replied in the cross-examination that it is a general practice that before executing the sale documents, the seller received the entire sale amount. In this regard, the cross-examination is referred to by Ld. Counsel for defendant. He submits that clearly a payment of complete sale consideration was not an unusual contract. 8.5 It is further argued that since the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant got the agreement signed on coercion and has admitted his signature on the same, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
8.6 As to the issue of maintainability of the suit, the Ld. Counsel submits that the suit is otherwise maintainable, CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 16 -
and the present issue was framed as only in case the plaintiff fails to prove his case the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator as Ex.PW1/D1 contains an arbitration clause.
9. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the sides and gone through the record of the case and the judgments cited and given my thoughtful consideration to the same.
10. ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS & REASONS FOR DECISION ISSUE NO. 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration that agreement dated 27.03.2009 is liable to be declared as null and void? OPP AND ISSUE NO. 4 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP 10.1 The present is a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the confirmation cum agreement cum receipt dated 27.03.2009 Ex.PW1/D1 as null and void alleging that the same was got executed by the defendant from the plaintiff by exercising coercion. As per section 104 of BSA 2023, the plaintiff has to prove his case that Ex.PW1/D1 was not signed by him out of his free will but due to coercion exercised upon him by the defendant. Further, it is settled law that the plea of coercion has to be substantiated by leading cogent and proper evidence and the case can only be decided on the particulars of CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 17 -
coercion, as laid in the pleadings and there can be no departure from them in evidence (Bishundeo Narain and Anr vs. Seogent Rai and Anr - 1951 SCC 447 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd and Ors vs. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot), Private Ltd and ors-2023 SCC OnLine SC 411). Keeping in mind the said position, this court shall now examine whether the plaintiff has successfully discharged his burden and has proved the exercice of of coercion upon him.
10.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that on 08.04.2009 at about 1:30 p.m, the defendant along with one lady namely Ms. Bhavna Pandey and two other musclemen forcefully entered in the office of the plaintiff at 14, Niti Bagh, New Delhi and threatened the plaintiff and his staff by pointing a gun on them. He was thrashed with kicks and blows by the men accompanying him and thereafter the defendant took him to a room and locked it from inside and got some papers and post dated cheque signed from him by putting a gun on his head. It is his case that even the lady threatened him to implicate him in a false rape case. It is averred that it is only due to the said threat to him and the life of his family members that he executed the said documents. It has been averred that his office staff was threatened not to interfere. Thus clearly, the incident occurred in the presence of his office staff, however, despite availability of witnesses to the incident, no such witness to the incident has been produced by the plaintiff in support of his case.
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 18 -
In the cross-examination dt 02.08.2017, it has been stated by the plaintiff that his Receptionist namely Alka and Peon namely Himraj @ Heera were present on 08.04.2009. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the plaintiff for not examining his staff members as witness and one of the witness Ms. Alka mentioned in the list of witnesses has also been simply dropped without citing any reasons and has not been examined. This is not a case where no direct evidence was available but as per the narrative of the plaintiff himself, there were witnesses to the incident, however, as stated above, the plaintiff has failed to examine the said witnesses and therefore, the arguments of the counsel that such cases can only be proved by circumstantial evidence, has no weight.
10.3 It is also important to note that the case of the plaintiff is that he was made to sign blank papers, however, the perusal of Ex.PW1/D1 shows that the signatures of the plaintiff are across and over the stamp pasted on the said document and thus the story of obtaining the signatures on blank papers appears to be a concocted story.
10.4 As regards the issuance of the post dated cheque of Rs. 20 lakhs, alleged to be also issued under coercion, the same also does not inspire confidence as factum of issuance of the said cheque does not find any mention in the complaint dt 10.04.2009 and the subsequent complaint dt 07.12.2009 which were the very first narratives of the plaintiff about the incident. Further, it is not believable as to why the defendant would CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 19 -
make the plaintiff enter a date on the cheque while getting it signed under threat whereas a mere signing of a blank cheque would have served his purpose.
Further, despite a complaint being filed on 10.04.2009, no instructions for stop payment were issued to the banker. In fact as per the statement made in cross-examination dt 09.10.2017, the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds and only thereafter the account was closed by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff states that a post dated cheque was issued by him, it is not stated as to for what date the cheque was issued. This appears to be so, probably because the cheque was dishonoured at a much later time after filing of the complaint by the plaintiff. As per the copy of the cheque on record Ex.DW11 (Colly), the same bears the date as 01.05.2009.
Relevant part of cross-examination reproduced herewith.
" Q. It is correct that the above said cheque of Rs. 20 Lacs issued by you in favour of the defendant was firstly bounced due to insufficient fund, thereafter you closed your account ?
Ans. I don't remember the status of above said cheque. Defendant filed 138 NI Act complaint in regard to above cheque which got dismissed in default several time despite of being restored by Hon'ble High Court. Suggestion: it is wrong to suggest that said complaint u/s. 138 NI Act is still pending.
Question: Can you tell the dated when you closed your said account and why.
Ans. No. Question: Why you have not made the stop payment of the said cheque of Rs. 20 Lacs ?
Ans. I don't remember whether it the payment was stopped or not."
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 20 -
It appears that the story of the plaintiff about the issuance of the said cheque is an after thought.
10.5 Further, the plaintiff has set up the non repayment of loan of the defendant as a motive for the defendant to commit coercion upon the plaintiff for execution of Ex. PW1/D1. However, even the plaintiff has failed to prove that any loan was given by the defendant to the Company of the plaintiff as alleged in Para 5 of his Affidavit Ex PW1/1. The relevant part of the cross-examination dt 07.10.2017 and 09.10.2017 is reproduced hereunder.
Cross-examination dt 07.10.2017 "Question: In para no. 5 of your affidavit, you alleged that defendant has been leading money to my company of an on interest basis can you tell how much total amount alleged to be lead by the defendant to your company ?
Answer: I do not remember exactly but the approximate amount balance with interest in 2009 was Rs. 65 lakhs.
Question can you tell, the alleged rate of interest ?
Answer it varied from time to time.
Question can you tell the initial rate of interest and
the last rate of interest ?
Answer I do not remember.
Question: is it correct that your company being a
private limited company act cannot borrow any loan from any person without passing a resolution in the meeting of board of director ?
Answer: it is correct that for all acts a resolution is required in a Pvt limited company.
Question: Whether before taking the alleged loan by your company from the defendant any board resolution was passed.
Answer: I do not remember. I can't produce such board resolution as it is more than seven years old document.
It is incorrect to suggest that there was no loan transaction CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 21 -
between my company and the defendant.
Question: I put to you that there was no alleged loan transaction between my company and the defendant, henceforth for that reason you can't tell the total alleged loan amount, rate of interest and board resolution. Answer: I have told the exact balance amount and the bifurcation I can't tell as it is an old transaction."
Cross-examination dt 09.10.2017 Question: Whether your company maintained the books of account in regard the loan obtained by your company from third persons including defendant as alleged by you ?
Answer: Yes we maintain.
Question: Can you show the alleged loan of
defendant in the books of account of your company.
Answer: I have to check with my CA.
Question: Whether your company is Income tax
Assessee.
Answer: yes.
Question: When your company taken any loan from
any person, whether your company shown the same in Income Tax Returns.
Answer: Yes.
Question: Whether in the income tax returns filed by
your company, your company has shown that its have taken the loan from the defendant as alleged by you.
Answer: yes I have to check with my CA.
Question: Can you produced the said books of
account of your company and Income Tax retunes of your company for the period 2009 till date ?
Answer: If asked by the court.
Question: What was the alleged finance crunch as
alleged by your in para 6 of the affidavit Ex.PW1/1.
Answer: Not relevant.
It is wrong to suggest that para 6 and 7 of my affidavit Ex.PW1/1 are wrong."
10.6 Also, in the cross-examination of DW1 (Defendant) the plaintiff has not put any question regarding the facts/particulars as detailed in the pleadings to aver coercion and the cross-examination has been concluded by mere CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 22 -
suggestions as to the said particulars. The entire cross- examination has focused only upon the payment or non payment of Rs. 6.10 crores and transaction of sale of the three properties mentioned in the Ex PW1/D1.
10.7. Further, though it has been averred that he was thrashed with kicks and blows by two musclemen, yet no medical documents in this regard have been produced. 10.8 It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff had stated in his cross-examination dt 02.08.2017 that the defendant stayed in his office for 30-45 minutes. It is his case that the Plaintiff was taken in a locked room later to sign some documents. Thus, clearly the staff of plaintiff had sufficient time to raise an alarm or to even call the police, but no such complaint was filed by his staff as well. Importantly, it is not the case of the Plaintiff that the staff were left guarded. This further creates doubts on the story of the plaintiff. 10.9. The plaintiff has also failed to prove his complaints Mark D and E, as per law.
10.10. From the above it is clear that the plaintiff has not led even a single evidence to prove the particulars/facts of coercion mentioned in the pleadings but has only attempted to show by way of cross-examination of DW1 that the payment of 6.10 crores could not have been done in cash and the plaintiff could not have dealt with the properties mentioned in Ex. PW1/D1. In essence the plaintiff has only attempted to show that the deal as enunciated in Ex.PW1/D1 was CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 23 -
unbelievable yet failing to prove that it was impossible.
10.11 Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove even prima facie that the defendant exercised coercion upon the plaintiff viz., that the defendant came to the office of the plaintiff with a lady Bahvna Pandey and two musclemen and threatened him and his staff with dire consequences. He also also failed to prove that he was taken to a locked room and was made to sign some blank papers including a post dated cheque by placing a gun on his temple. Thus the onus never shifted upon the defendant to disprove the averments of the plaintiff. Thus the arguments of the plaintiff that the defendant has failed to prove the payment of Rs.6.10 crore to plaintiff holds no weight. 10.12. To support his case, the counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the transaction pertaining to sale of three properties on a payment of full cash consideration, is unbelievable. Though it has already been discussed above that the plaintiff was bound to prove the particulars of coercion which he has failed to do, yet even if the said argument is considered, the same would be of no support to the case of the plaintiff. It was argued that it is unlikely that any person would hand over the full and final consideration amount for three properties merely on execution of agreement cum receipt and even the defendant has not proved the payment of Rs.6,10,00,000/- to the plaintiff. However, it is the case of the plaintiff himself that he had very good and cordial relations with the defendant and that the defendant had been CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 24 -
adducing a loan to him time and again and that he had taken loan of Rs.65 lakhs from the defendant (though not proved). Even, the plaintiff has not produced anything to show that such loan transaction was ever documented between the parties. Thus the possibility of taking of full consideration on execution of receipt does not seem to be an impossibility and cannot be ruled out. Further, it has been proved in cross-examination dt 06.07.2017 that even previously a similar deal pertaining to property bearing no. 38, Third Floor, Uday park, New Delhi, had happened between the parties wherein some sale consideration was paid even before execution of sale deed. No receipts have been proved to have been executed for the said amounts. 10.13 As regards the arguments of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff could not have executed the said receipt cum agreement as the properties mentioned therein do not belong to him, the same also holds no weight. The agreement cum receipt does not mention that the plaintiff is the owner of the properties mentioned therein but only mentions that he has the right and authority to sell the same. Admittedly, the defendant had filed a police complaint against the plaintiff alleging cheating on same grounds.
10.14 At the sake of repetition, it is again clarified here that none of the arguments of the plaintiff as dealt in para 10.12
- 10.13 above is relevant to prove coercion. 10.15 The question whether the defendant has actually paid the consideration amount to the plaintiff or not, cannot be CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 25 -
a question to determine whether coercion was exercised upon the plaintiff or not especially in view of the eye witness to the incident being available and yet being not examined. Had the plaintiff succeeded in proving the particulars of coercion, the said question would have added a corroborative force to his case but cannot be an independent fact to decide whether coercion was exercised or not.
10.16 It is also pertinent to mention that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff only on 03.05.2010 after the defendant had registered a police complaint against the plaintiff on 24.09.2009 and despite the plaintiff having already filed his complaint on 10.04.2009. No legal proceedings were also initiated by the plaintiff despite alleging that he was also made to sign a post dated cheque.
10.17 In the considered opinion of this court, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden of proof and, therefore, the onus never shifted upon the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the above, issue No.3 & 4 are decided against the plaintiff.
11. ISSUE NO. 1 : Whether the present suit is not maintainable and is barred under law? OPD 11.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the suit as filed is maintainable, however, if the court comes to the conclusion that the agreement cum receipt Ex.PW1/D1 has not been executed under coercion then the present suit would not be maintainable and the parties will have to resort to CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 26 -
arbitration.
11.2 Thus clearly the defendant is not objecting to the maintainability of the present suit wherein the plaintiff only seeks declaration of Confirmation-cum- Agreement-cum- Receipt of 27.03.2009, as null and void on the ground of coercion.
Since the plaintiff only seeks declaration on the ground of coercion, the suit is maintainable and is not barred by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is a different thing to say that the plaintiff alleged coercion but failed to prove the same and therefore Arbitration would now be the recourse for the parties. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided.
12. ISSUE NO. 2 :Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD 12.1 The burden to prove the present issue was upon the defendant. However, no arguments have been led by the defendant in this regard.
As per Article 17 (iii) of the Court Fee Act, a fixed Court Fees is to be paid in a suit for declaration when no consequential relief is prayed. In the present suit, no consequential relief has been prayed by the plaintiff and, therefore, the court fees paid is correct.
Issue No.2 is accordingly decided.
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana
- 27 -
13. RELIEF : In view of the reasons and findings on the issues above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally
Announced in open Court GUNJAN
signed by
GUNJAN
GUPTA
on 30.06.2025 GUPTA Date:
2025.07.04
17:37:17
+0530
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
DJ-04/South-East,Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS DJ 7540/16 Sanjeev Chanana Vs. Kushal K. Rana