Delhi District Court
Anukaran Malik vs Housing Development Finance ... on 29 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, DJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No.55486/2016
DLND010000182013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Anukaran Malik,
S/o Wg. Cdr. B.S. Malik (Retd.),
R/o M-13, Sector-25, Noida-201301 (UP) ......Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Housing Development Finance Corporation,
(HDFC) Ltd. (Through its authorised signatories),
Registered Office: Ramon House, 169, Backbay
Reclamation, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
2. Shri Deepak Vasandani (Branch Manager),
HDFC Ltd., Delhi Regional Branch Office,
C-17, Top Floor, C-Block Market,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110067
(Formerly defendant no.6).
3. Shri Ranjan Jaggi (Deputy Manager),
HDFC Ltd., Delhi Regional Branch Office,
C-17, Top Floor, C-Block Market,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110067
(Formerly defendant no.7).
4. Shri Deepak Joshi (Relationship Officer),
HDFC Ltd., Delhi Regional Branch Office,
C-17, Top Floor, C-Block Market,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110067
(Formerly defendant no.8). ...Defendants
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 1 of 53
Date of Institution : 06.08.2013
Date of Arguments: 16.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking decree of sum of Rs. 16,80,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is as follows:
2.1. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of assisting his clients for sanction of loan from banks and financial institutions.
2.2. The defendant no.1 is a financial institution engaged in the business of advancing loans to its customers through different modes and channels.
2.3. The plaintiff and the defendant no.1 had entered into and executed a Business Sourcing Associate (BSA) Agreement dated 27.08.2012 under which the plaintiff became a business sourcing associate of the defendant. Under the said agreement, the plaintiff was to provide leads, i.e. clients, to the defendant no.1 and to follow up the process for sanction of loan to such leads.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 2 of 532.4. The plaintiff provided a lead, namely Mr. Kabul Chawla, to the defendant no.1 for grant of home loan to the tune of Rs. 56 Crores. The proposed loan was personal to Mr. Kabul Chawla (the lead) and was not in respect of the company BPTP Ltd. in which Mr. Kabul Chawla was the Chairman and Managing Director.
2.5. On 11.07.2012, the plaintiff met Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia, Vice President, BPTP Ltd. at 15, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon 122017, Haryana, to discuss about Mr. Chawla's proposal for home loan. An email to that effect was sent by the plaintiff to Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla on 12.07.2012. However, this proposal was for sanction of loan by Standard Chartered Bank, which proposal was changed to HDFC Ltd. by the plaintiff in consultation with and tacit consent of Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla, who agreed to and preferred HDFC Ltd. over Standard Chartered Bank. Accordingly, a meeting was fixed between Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla with the plaintiff at their office in Gurgaon at about 3 pm on 11.08.2012.
2.6. In the meeting on 11.08.2012, it was decided and agreed upon by Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla to approach HDFC Ltd. through the plaintiff for the proposed loan. Accordingly, the plaintiff met Mr. CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 3 of 53Ranjan Jaggi (defendant no.3) and Mr. Deepak Joshi (defendant no.4), the representatives of the defendant no.1 company, on 13.08.2012 in the office of HDFC Ltd., C-17, Top Floor, C-Block Market, Vasant Vihar Market, New Delhi 110067.
2.7. On 13.08.2012, the defendant no.1 company through its officials accorded its consent to the plaintiff to complete the necessary formalities to negotiate with the company and to proceed with the sanction of proposed loan, and requested the plaintiff to sign the BSA Agreement. The plaintiff signed the agreement, which was to be sent to the Head office of the defendant no.1 company at Mumbai for approval and execution by the authorised signatory on behalf of the company, which was signed on behalf of the company on 27.08.2012. The negotiations with the company for sanction of loan had already started on 13.08.2012.
2.8. After the discussion on 13.08.2012 with the representatives of the defendant no.1 company, a complete checklist of necessary documents, as required by the company were e-mailed by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff, who forwarded it to Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla. Hence, the plaintiff initiated the process for the proposed loan. Certain documents were supplied to the plaintiff by Mr. CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 4 of 53Chawla on 14.08.2012, which were handed over to Mr. Jaggi and Mr. Joshi on the same day.
2.9. On verification of the documents by Mr. Jaggi and Mr. Joshi, a list of pending documents required by the company, was e-mailed to the plaintiff on 18.08.2012, which was forwarded by the plaintiff to Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla through e-mail on 19.08.2012.
2.10. Mr. Bhatia intimated the plaintiff through e-mail on 21.08.2012 about the pending documents being ready, and requested the plaintiff to collect the same to submit with the company. Accordingly, the plaintiff collected the pending documents on 22.08.2012, and directly submitted them with the company.
2.11. On 29.08.2012, the plaintiff sent a reminder to Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Chawla through e-mail regarding the collection of the application form duly signed by the lead/client alongwith a cheque of Rs. 11,236/- in favour of the company for further progress of the matter. Alongside, Мr. Jasmeet, who had personally introduced the plaintiff to Mr. Chawla regarding his home loan, had sent an e- mail on 29.08.2012 regarding the fixing up of the meeting between Mr. Bhatia, Mr. Chawla, the CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 5 of 53plaintiff and senior officials of the defendant no.1 company.
2.12. On 31.08.2012, Mr. Bhatia sent an e-mail to the plaintiff stating that the application form and cheque were ready to be collected from his office and that the managing director of the defendant no.1 company will be meeting Mr. Chawla and that the plaintiff was to facilitate the meeting. Thereafter, the plaintiff personally collected the documents from the office of BPTP Ltd. on 03.09.2012.
2.13. The plaintiff was regularly in touch with Mr. Bhatia, Mr. Chawla and the concerned representatives of the defendant no.1 company through e-mails on 03.09.2012 and on 05.09.2012.
2.14. The defendant no.1 company, through telephonic conversations on 05.09.2012 and 07.09.2012, requested the plaintiff for a formal meeting between the defendant no.1 company (represented through Sh. Shivang Sharma, Sh. Deepak Vasandani and Sh. Ranjan Jaggi), the plaintiff and the lead Mr. Chawla or his representative Mr Bhatia at the BPTP Ltd. office in Gurgaon. Several e-mails were also exchanged between the plaintiff and the above-mentioned parties to that effect. Hence, ultimately, a meeting was fixed for CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 6 of 5310.09.2012 at 3.30 pm at the office of BPTP Ltd. in Gurgaon. In the meeting, the entire case was discussed and the future course of action was planned, so much so that a few documents were further required by the company in connection with the further processing of the proposed loan.
2.15. On 12.09.2012, Mr. Shivang Sharma (North Head sales), Delhi Regional Branch office of defendant no.1 at Capital Court, Munirka, New Delhi-67, contacted the plaintiff, Mr. Bhatia and the other representatives of the company, through e-mail to furnish twentyfive additional documents as proposed by the company's Credit Underwriting Team. By 15.09.2012, the plaintiff personally collected twentythree documents from the lead and submitted them with the regional office of the company at Capital Court, Munirka, New Delhi. The remaining two documents were e-mailed to the plaintiff by Mr. Bhatia, which were forwarded by e-mail by the plaintiff to the company.
2.16. On 17.09.2012, the plaintiff was shocked to hear through a telephonic conversation with Mr. Shivang Sharma, Ms. Deepa Joshi and Mr. Ranjan Jaggi, who were representatives of the defendant no.1, that the defendant no.1 now had a direct accessibility to the lead and some persons in the company had direct link with the lead, and hence, CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 7 of 53the case would no longer be credited to the business code of the plaintiff. This was totally illegal, mala fide and in violation of the contract between the parties.
2.17. Despite repeated visits, requests and formal demands of the plaintiff, verbally and through emails on 19.09.2012, 11.10.2012 and 19.10.2012, there was no response by the defendant no.1 with the sole intention to avoid payment of commission to the plaintiff of 0.30% of the disbursed loan amount of 56 Crores which came to Rs.16,80,000/-.
2.18. The plaintiff lastly met Ms. Madhumita Ganguly, part of the executive management of the defendant no.1 at the defendant no.1's Delhi Regional Office, in November 2012. The plaintiff was discouraged to follow up the matter and was asked to forego the commission in question. However, this was not acceptable to the plaintiff.
2.19. The matter was kept in abeyance and suspense for a long time by the defendants and there was no response for months together. The plaintiff only subsequently became aware about the disbursement of the loan which came to his knowledge on 20.05.2013 through a reliable source that the defendant no.1 company had disbursed the CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 8 of 53loan amount of Rs. 56 Crores to the lead directly through RTGS. This had been purposely kept secret from the plaintiff.
2.20. The plaintiff was constrained to send a legal demand notice dated 31.05.2013 to the defendant claiming the commission amount of Rs.
16,80,000/- along with interest, however, neither any payment was made nor there was any response from the defendant despite service.
2.21. On this basis, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking decree of sum of Rs.16,80,000/- along with interest.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The defendant no.1 has filed its written statement seeking dismissal of the suit. The defence raised by the defendant no.1 in its written statement is summarised as follows:
3.1. The commission amount was not payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was claiming commission in respect of a customer i.e. Mr. Kabul Chawla whose company BPTP Ltd. had been in business relation with the defendant no.1 for more than seven years.
Hence, the involvement of the plaintiff was not necessary or required in the transaction. The customer in question, i.e. Mr. Kabul Chawla, who had taken the loan had already discussed his CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 9 of 53intention with the defendant to take the loan in the month of May, 2012 when he had met and discussed viability of loan for some of his company projects as well as of loan for the purchase of property in his personal name. In this regard, Ms. Geetika Vaish, employee of the defendant no.1, had followed up with Mr. Inderbir Bhatia, Vice President of BPTP Ltd., who was the in-charge and designated person for the supply of information and documents and had sent first email on 31.05.2012. An email had been sent to Mr. Inderbir Bhatia on 10.06.2012 asking for approved plan and in this manner number of emails were exchanged between the customer and the officials of the defendant no.1 between September 2012 to February 2013 apart from telephonic and personal visits to the office of the customers.
3.2. The suit was also not maintainable for any commission in view of the BSA Agreement as the plaintiff had violated the terms of the agreement. As per Clause 5 of Annexure-A of BSSA, for payment of commission it was made clear that "the lead provided to HDFC is a new lead and is not a duplicate lead for producing required information about the lead to HDFC and helping HDFC assess the duplicity of leads". In the present case, the plaintiff was not entitled to any claim since the customer had already met the officials of the CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 10 of 53defendant no.1 in the month of May 2012 and since then the officials of the defendant no.1 had been in constant touch with the customer, hence, the plaintiff could not claim his interest in the said lead which had already been with the defendant no.1 resulting thereby in violation of the BSA Agreement.
3.3. Further, as per the terms and conditions of the BSA Agreement and Annexure-C thereto, the plaintiff was not even entitled to become the BSA of the defendant no. 1 because the plaintiff had concealed the fact that he was not a self-financed financial advisor, rather was running a full fledged financial company having employed a number of employees with him.
3.4. The plaintiff was aware that he had not worked for the defendant no. 1 for the lead in question and was not entitled to any payment of commission, and hence, the plaintiff had not even raised any invoice against the defendant no. 1.
3.5. Even the role of the plaintiff had been denied by Mr. Inderbir Bhatia vide email dated 19.09.2012 sent to the plaintiff informing him for submission of documents directly to the defendant no. 1.
3.6. The plaintiff had committed breach of trust and had met the customer to assist him for providing the loan for Standard Chartered Bank but when the plaintiff CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 11 of 53could not succeed in his efforts, the plaintiff took undue advantage by sending and exchanging certain emails in order to gain the confidence of the customer for future transactions and the said emails were now being used for his unjust and illegal claims.
3.7. The plaintiff had got himself appointed as BSA by misrepresentation and misleading the facts knowing well that the customer was already in touch with the defendant no.1 and would prefer to take loan from the defendant no.1, and hence by representing himself as a self employed financial advisor got the BSA agreement signed on 27.08.2012.
3.8. Mr. Kabul Chawla, Chairman and MD of BPTP Ltd., has business transactions for his various projects known in the name of BPTP in Faridabad, Gurgaon and Delhi NCR region with the defendant no.1 for more than seven years. The said customer had already met with the officials of the defendant no. 1 in the month of May, 2012 and since then the officials of defendant no.1 had been in constant touch with the customer and hence the plaintiff cannot claim any interest in the said lead.
3.9. Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia had been interacting with the officials of the defendant no.1 since May, 2012 for the personal loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla, and even CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 12 of 53as on July, 2012 the plaintiff was not even BSA agent of the defendant no. 1. The checklist of the necessary documents was first emailed to Mr. Inderbir Bhatia on 31.05.2012 and hence, the plaintiff cannot take any advantage of having any interaction with the customer in question.
3.10. The documents and application form were got signed from Mr. Kabul Chawla by the officials of the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff had no role whatsoever in the same.
3.11. The officials of the defendant no.1 had no difficulty in approaching Mr. Kabul Chawla for the process of loan because in principle it had been decided and discussed in the month of May 2012 for the loan of Mr. Kabul Chawla and the plaintiff had not introduced any fresh lead which could have been converted to the code of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in order to take undue advantage had entered into the BSA Agreement dated 27.08.2012.
3.12. The other defendants were not necessary parties to the suit.
3.13. On this basis, the defendant no. 1 has sought dismissal of the suit.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 13 of 534. Vide order dated 11.09.2014, the original defendants no. 2 to 5, who were employees/officials of the defendant no.1 company, were deleted from the array of parties.
5. The original defendants no. 6 to 8 (presently defendants nos. 2 to 4), who were employees/officials of the defendant no.1 company, did not file any written statement in the suit and these defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 05.04.2014.
ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 18.09.2015, read with order dated 04.11.2015, the following issues were framed in the suit:
1. Whether the plaintiff has provided a new lead as per clause 5 of Annexure A of the BSA agreement dated 27.08.2012 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of amount of Rs.16,80,000/- as prayed for?
OPP.
3. If the issue No.2 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled of pendente lite and future interest & if so, at what rate as prayed for? OPP.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 14 of 534. Whether Sh. Kabul Chawla was already a customer of the defendant no.1, since when and in what capacity? If so, its effect? OPD.
5. Whether the defendant no.1 has/had direct and independent interactions and transactions with Mr. Kabul Chawla for sanction of the loan in question without the assistance of the plaintiff? OPD.
6. Whether the plaintiff was not BSA agent of the defendant no.1 on August 13, 2012? OPD.
7. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW-1/A in which he has deposed along the lines of the plaint. He was cross-examined by the defendant. The plaintiff has relied upon the following documents: Copy of e-mail dated 12.07.2012 Ex. PW-1/1, copy of e-mail dated 18.08.2012 at 3.32 p.m. Ex. PW-1/2A and its attachment Ex. PW-1/2B, forwarded e-mail dated 19.08.2012 at 1.02 p.m. sent to Sh. Jasmeet Singh Ex. PW-1/3, forwarded e- mail dated 19.08.2012 at 2.49 pm Ex PW-1/4, e-mail dated 21.08.2012 at 7.36 pm Ex. PW-1/5, e-mail dated 19.08.2012 and 21.08.2012 Ex. PW-1/6A and PW-1/6B respectively and PW-1/6C and PW-1/6D, reminder through e-mail dated 29.08.2012 at 1.24 pm Ex. PW-1/7, CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 15 of 53e-mail dated 29.08.2012 at 6.30 pm Ex. PW-1/8, e-mail dated 31.08.2012 at 6.45 pm Ex. PW-1/9, e-mail dated 03.09.2012 at 11.27 am, 12.04 pm and 12.16 pm Ex. PW-1/10 A to PW-1/10C respectively, e-mail dated 05.09.2012 at 1.24 pm and 6.02 pm and 6.03 pm Ex.PW-1/11A to PW-1/11C, copies of e-mail dated 07.09.2012 at 12.54 pm and 2.50 pm and dated 10.09.2012 at 10.03 am Ex. PW-1/12 A to PW-1/12C respectively, seven e-mails dated 11.09.2012 at 2.47 pm, 3.21 pm, 07.46 pm, 01.28 pm. 6.14 pm, and dated 12.09.2012 at 2.23 pm and 8.20 pm Ex. PW-1/13 A to PW-1/13G, e-mail dated 13.09.2012 at 10.26 am Ex. PW-1/14, E-mail dated 19.09.2012 at 7.56 pm and 8.11 pm Ex. PW-1/15 and PW-1/15B, e-mail dated 11.10.2012 Ex. PW-1/16, e-mail dated 19.10.2012 Ex. PW-1/17, Original speed post receipts Ex. PW-1/18A to PW-1/18H, original courier receipts Ex. PW-1/19A to PW-1/19H, Original AD cards Ex. PW-1/20A to PW-1/20D, Web pages of different websites operated by the company Ex. PW-1/21A to PW-1/21V (1-30 pages) and BSA Agreement Ex. P-1, e- mail dated 12.09.2012 at 12.08 pm Ex. P-2 and legal notice dated 31.05.2013 given Ex. P-3.
8. The plaintiff has also examined PW-2 Sh. Vikas Singh who is employee of the plaintiff. He has tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW-2/A. He was also cross-examined by the defendant.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 16 of 539. The plaintiff also summoned as a witness, the present defendant no. 4 Sh. Deepak Joshi and he was examined as PW-3. The defendant no.4/PW-3 was the former employee of the defendant no. 1. He was also cross-examined by the defendant no. 1.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
10. In support of its case the defendant no. 1 has examined as DW-1 Sh. Aju Ashok, who is the authorised representative of the defendant no. 1. He has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW-1/A in which he has deposed along the lines of the written statement. He has relied upon the following documents: Certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. DW-1/1, Ex. DW-1/A copy of authority letter (OSR), Ex. DW-1/B copy of email dated 31.05.2012, Ex. DW-1/C copy of emails of different dates, and Mark- D1 copy of BSA Agreement.
11. The defendant no.1 has also examined DW-2 Ms. Geetika Vaish, who is the employee of the defendant no. 1, and she has tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW-2/A. She was cross-examined by the plaintiff. She has relied upon the following documents: E-mail dated 31.05.2012 Ex.DW1/B, E-mail dated 10.06.2012 Ex. DW2/1, E-mail dated 10.08.2012 Ex.DW2/C, E-mail dated 18.09.2012 Ex.DW2/2, E-mail dated 12.09.2012 Ex.D-2, E-mail dated 20.09.2012 Ex.DW2/A-1, E-mail dated 12.10.2012 Ex.DW2/A-2, E-mail dated 10.09.2012 Ex.DW2/A-3, E-
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 17 of 53mail dated 14.09.2012 Ex.DW2/A-4, E-mail dated 15.10.2012 Ex.DW2/A-5, E-mail dated 17.12.2012 Ex.DW2/A-6, E-mail dated 03.12.2013 Ex.DW2/A-7, E- mail dated 14.03.2013 Ex.DW2/A-8, E-mail dated 19.03.2013 Ex.DW2/A-9, E-mail dated 25.03.2013 Ex. DW2/A-10, and E-mail dated 26.03.2013 Ex.DW2/A-11.
PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS
12. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the relevant pleadings and evidence on record and has submitted that the plaintiff has proved his case as pleaded and would be entitled to decree as prayed.
13. Ld. Counsel has made the following submissions:
13.1. That it is evident from the records/contents of Emails dated 31.05.2012 Ext. DW-1/B and 10.08.2012 Ext. DW-1/C (Colly.) that the same have neither been proved in evidence by the defendants No. 1-3 nor the contents thereof are relevant or related to the proposed loan of the lead, Mr. Kabul Chawla. It is submitted that on the one hand, it is crystal clear from the bare perusal of the contents of email dated 31.05.2012 that the subject matter of this email is "project loan" whereas at the bottom of this email (which is a forwarded email), the subject is inserted as, MR. CHAWLA'S INDIVIDUAL LOAN, which is totally fabricated, manipulated, invented later on, CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.Page No. 18 of 53
which has been established beyond doubt that the contents of the email dated do not match with the main subject line i.e. "project loan". Hence, the subject of "Mr. Kabul Chawla's personal loan" is not only totally contradictory and contrary to the project loan but also reveals to be an afterthought and fabrication just to defeat the claim of plaintiff, so much so that the same email is purportedly a created email of the HDFC Ltd, and does not even carry proper email IDs of the senders/recipients. Moreover, the said email is only a forwarded email, and as is well-known that any and all data, including, date, time, subject and body in all forwarded emails can be easily managed/changed/manipulated. Hence, on the face of it, it is clearly established from the contents/body of the email that the list of required documents may have been sought for some other purposes i.e. project loan of BPTP Ltd., which is totally contrary and contradictory to the requirements with regard to the proposed loan.
13.2. That the plaintiff has placed on record every single conversation and communication records that has taken place since 11.07.2012 till 07.09.2012, which are exhibited as Ext. PW-1 to Ext. PW-1/12C, which proves that the proposed loan in question was logged-in and processed by defendant No. 1 through plaintiff. Hence, in view CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 19 of 53of the said documents and in view of the admissions of DW-2 that no loan has even for projects loan purposes been sanctioned by the defendant No. 1 to Mr. Kabul Chawla inasmuch as no application for process of the proposed loan was filed by Mr. Chawla except the application, which was filed through plaintiff coupled with required documents, was logged-in and processed for purpose of sanction of proposed loan in question to Mr. Chawla, so much so that the plaintiff has successfully proved on record that Mr. Kabul Chawla was a new lead provided by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 and the entire process was geared-up/processed after the required documents were submitted by the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1, which further establish beyond doubt that the process of granting loan to Mr. Chawla was initiated and processed only through the plaintiff who is legally entitled for his commission as per the BSAA.
13.3. The objection of the defendant company that since the plaintiff has violated the terms of the BSAA and provided a duplicate lead to the company itself does not inspire any confidence after the defendant No. 1 company has miserably and desperately failed to place on record documents i.e. original application form, necessary fees/charges, KYC documents etc. to establish CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 20 of 53that original application with necessary fee for proposed loan to Mr. Chawla was logged-in directly by the defendant No. 1 or through any other person whosoever on behalf of Mr. Kabul Chawla except the one, which has been admittedly filed by the plaintiff, so much so that no such record has been filed by the defendant No. 1 despite the undertaking given by the witness DW-1 during his cross-examination, which fact has also been clearly admitted by the witness DW-2, who has even gone to the extent to say that even no project loan has ever been sanctioned by the defendant No. 1 to the lead (Mr. Kabul Chawla), and secondly that the proposed loan application submitted with necessary fees by the plaintiff was only logged-in and processed for the loan to Mr. Chawla, which proves that Mr. Kabul Chawla has/had applied for proposed loan only through plaintiff, and hence, Mr. Chawla was a fresh lead provided by plaintiff for proposed loan.
13.4. That the defense of the defendant No. 1 comes under cloud for the reason that the lead, Mr. Chawla as well as the plaintiff had always remained in loop/trail with the officials of the defendant No. 1 company for processing the proposed loan in question in coordination with Mr. Jasmeet Singh, which is evident from the various emails that stand proved in evidence by CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 21 of 53the plaintiff. Moreover, the direct/separate emails for arrangement and collection of the required documents as well as facilitation for meeting with the officials of the defendant company with the lead and his AR, Mr. Inderbir Bhatia also clearly substantiate that the lead was per se an outsource to the defendant No. 1 company by the plaintiff only, but later on, for malafide intentions and ulterior motives best known to the defendant No. 1 who in collusion with its officials have cheated and defrauded the plaintiff to make substantial financial gains to itself and cause substantial loss to the plaintiff, which has also materially affected his credentials, business and market goodwill and personal reputation.
13.5. That the specific admissions and serious and material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses of the defendant No. 1, completely demolish the case of the defendant No. 1.
13.6. That the burden was on the defendant No. 1 to prove that the lead of Mr. Kabul Chawla was a direct lead to the defendant No. 1 but nothing has been brought on record to prove this. The defendant No. 1 has failed to examine Mr. Kabul Chawla or Mr. Inderbir Bhatia or Mr. Shivang Sharma or Mr. Jasmeet Singh or any member of his team, who could be the best witness to prove CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 22 of 53the case/defense of the defendant No. 1 company. Therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the defendant No. 1 had cooked up a moonshine story to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiff.
13.7. That from the evidence produced by the defendant No. 1 itself it is clearly established that it is only the plaintiff who initiated the process for grant of loan to Mr. Chawla which is further substantiated from the communications exchanged between the officials/team of defendant No. 1, the lead, its team and the plaintiff.
13.8. That the objections with regard to providing duplicate lead and violation of terms and condition of BSAA and its Annexure-C are self contradictory and destructive of the case of the defendant No. 1 company, who has failed to prove any breach of violation of the terms and conditions of the BSAA by the plaintiff inasmuch as there has been no communication or notice to the plaintiff for any breach by the plaintiff, so much so that the BSAA was never cancelled/revoked or terminated by the defendant No. 1, but on the other hand the defendant No. 1 has made unscrupulous attempts to create false evidence in support of its case, which is established from the role of the members of the team of the defendant No. 1 company, who have CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 23 of 53tried their best to create false evidence to corroborate the case of the defendant no. 1 in collusion each other and on the dictate of the senior officers of the defendant No. 1.
13.9. That the contention of the defendant No. 1 that no invoice was raised by the plaintiff for his claim has no substance nor sustainable in the eyes of law in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the trail/loop of conversations/communication of the loan transaction was illegally stopped by the defendant No. 1.
13.10. That the defendant has not replied to the legal demand notice of the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount, which was duly served upon the defendant No. 1, but it has been admitted.
DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS
14. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the defendant no.1 has referred to the relevant pleadings and evidence in support of the defendant no.1, and has submitted that the plaintiff has been unable to prove his case as pleaded and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
15. Ld. counsel for the defendant has made the following Issue-wise submissions:
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.Page No. 24 of 53 Re: Issues No.1, 2 and 3
15.1. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff has miserably failed to do so.
15.2. It is abundantly clear that Ms. Geetika Vaish of the defendant no.1 was already in communication with Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia and Mr. Kabul Chawla from way before. The said knowledge is clear from the email dated 07.09.2012 at12:54 PM Ex PW-1/12A from the plaintiff to Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia. Cleverly, with oblique motive, the plaintiff had hidden the subsequent replies of this Email by Sh. Inderbir Bhatia.
15.3. In the plaint it is stated that Mr. Jasmeet had personally introduced the plaintiff to Mr. Chawla.
From the testimony of PW-1 it is amply clear that the plaintiff did not have any instructions from Mr. Kabul Chawla or through Mr. Inderbir Bhatia or any other official to get sanctioned the individual loan from HDFC Ltd. as it was being managed through Ms. Geetika Vaish of HDFC Ltd. and so said persons, Mr. Kabul Chawla or Mr. Inderbir Bhatia, did not acknowledge the plaintiff's role in the said process. Neither Mr. Kabul Chawla nor his other officials, particularly Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia, or other persons copied CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 25 of 53in the communications, i.e. Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Gagan Randev etc., were got summoned by the plaintiff or any attempt was made by the plaintiff to have their testimony recorded. Given the facts and circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, it is clear that the testimony of the said persons would have given the best evidence and would have disclosed in what capacity the plaintiff was dealing with them in the first place. Thus, an adverse inference would be drawn against the plaintiff for having not produced the best evidence.
15.4. In the email dated 11.09.2012 Ex PW-1/13A, it is stated that "Sales Manager from HDFC Ranjan Jaggi would be coming to the office of InderBir Singh Bhatia to collect the documents discussed last evening at the time of our meeting" . It is clear that document collection was not plaintiff's sole responsibility and the same was undertaken by HDFC sales team as well. Further, plaintiff has admitted in his Email dated 19.09.2012 that the file had been logged in with a different code than his. From the entire testimony it is disclosed that no communication was made by plaintiff to HDFC Ltd. (defendant No. 1) before 19.09.2012 with regard to any sanctioning of loan on behalf of Mr. Kabul Chawla. It was admitted and communicated by Mr. Kabul Chawla i.e. the lead CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 26 of 53himself, through his agent Mr. Inderbir Bhatia himself, that he was already with the Defendant No.1. It is clear that there was clear understanding between Mr. Kabul Chawla, the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff that the loan application of the borrower Mr. Kabul Chawla was being processed independently of the plaintiff.
15.5. In the email dated 11.10.2012 Ex.PW-1/16, the plaintiff started raising a false alarm and created a concocted story that he had come to know that the lead of Mr. Kabul Chawla has been entered into the system as the lead of the defendant. This email plaintiff was deliberately sent to create evidence for the future. It was already to his knowledge in September 2012 that the sourcing of this lead has been with the defendant no.1 already.
15.6. The plaintiff has also not shown how the calculation for the claim has been made to file the present suit. It has not been proved that the disbursement amount was Rs. 56 Crores in actuality. Even in the email communication being relied by the plaintiff it is not shown that the loan amount of Rs.56 crores had been sanctioned or was to be disbursed.
Re: Issues No.4 and 5CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 27 of 5315.7. Reference is made to the Email dated 31.05.2012 Ex-DW-1/B from Ms. Geetika Vaish to Mr. Inderbir Bhatia and Email dated 10.08.2012 Ex DW-1/C from Mr. K.P. Aggarwala of HDFC Ltd. to Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia. It is submitted that the loan sanction process for Mr. Chawla was started in May 2012 itself directly by the defendant no.1.
15.8. Reference is also made to the Email dated 19.09.2012 Ex.D-2 from Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to not to be harsh and clarifying that Mr. Kabul Chawla's loan application was already being processed by the defendant no.1 and that they had already submitted the documents in this regard.
15.9. As per the Definition Clause in the Business Sourcing Associates Agreement, "Lead" means "Customers who are interested in the products of HDFC and have explicitly expressed their intention to the Associate for being contacted by HDFC on phone and for whom the following information is available, viz: name of the customer, telephone number, and address of the property to be funded, property cost". "Duplicate Lead" means a Lead provided to HDFC which already exists in the HDFC Leads Database. Under Annexure A- Scope of Service- Clause 5, it CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 28 of 53is the responsibility of the BSA to ensure that the lead provided to HDFC is a new lead and not a duplicate lead by providing the required information about the lead and helping HDFC assess the duplicity of the leads.
15.10. In the present case, it is amply clear that the plaintiff was informed that the lead was already being processed through the official of defendant no.1 previously and was made aware that the loan application can not be logged-in through his business sourcing code and Mr. Kabul Chawla will be treated as a walk-in customer however the plaintiff mala fide has filed the present suit. Further, even the lead has denied that he sought to get the loan process managed by the plaintiff. Under the terms of Annexure B of the BSA Agreement, defendant no.1 is even otherwise exempted from paying the sourcing fee payable to the plaintiff which are applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Re: Issue No.6 15.11. Section 91 r/w Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, clearly bars adducing oral evidence contrary to writing reduced in a document. As per the definition clause of the agreement: "Effective Date" means the date of the Agreement i.e. the CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 29 of 53BSA Agreement. In the present case the date of the agreement is clearly written as 27.08.2012, hence it is amply clear that clauses of the agreement will apply prospectively.
15.12. Even as per the submission of the plaintiff, it is clear that only the plaintiff signed the Agreement on 13.08.2012 and thereafter only when defendant had obtained approval that the BSA Agreement was executed subsequently on 27.08.2012.
15.13. It is submitted that even otherwise the stance of the plaintiff with respect to the signing/execution of the BSA Agreement varies as per convenience. In the legal notice Ex.P-3, the date of execution of the BSA Agreement is admitted as 27.08.2012 however to file the present case, facts were manipulated to claim execution at an even prior date so that the role of the plaintiff in the loan transaction of Mr. Kabul Chawla can be further exaggerated, and so in the plaint, it is stated that the BSA Agreement was signed by the plaintiff on 13.08.2012. This was refuted by the defendant no.1, however, in replication to written statement, it has been asserted that plaintiff had signed the agreement way back in June 2012, in the presence of original defendant no. 7 and 8 at their office. The plaintiff's brought witness PW-3 was tutored to depose that the agreement was signed by CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 30 of 53plaintiff on 13.08.2012 in his presence at plaintiff's office.
15.14. The plaintiff's claim is without merit. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any entitlement to the amount claimed. The suit is based on a flawed premise, lacks cause of action, involves improper joinder of parties, and is devoid of credible evidence. The plaintiff has not only violated the terms of the BSA agreement but has also acted in bad faith by attempting to claim commission on a lead that was never his.
16. Both parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
17. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the record including the pleadings, evidence (both oral and documentary) and the written submissions.
18. My Issue-wise findings are as follows.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS & DISCUSSION Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiff has provided a new lead as per clause 5 of Annexure A of the BSA agreement dated 27.08.2012 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1? OPP.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 31 of 53Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of amount of Rs.16,80,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
Issue No.3. If the issue No.2 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled of pendente lite and future interest & if so, at what rate as prayed for.? OPP.
Issue No.4. Whether Sh. Kabul Chawla was already a customer of the defendant no.1, since when and in what capacity? If so, its effect. OPD.
Issue No.5. Whether the defendant no.1 has/had direct and independent interactions and transactions with Mr. Kabul Chawla for sanction of the loan in question without the assistance of the plaintiff? OPD.
Issue No.6. Whether the plaintiff was not BSA agent of the defendant no.1 on August 13, 2012? OPD.
19. All the issues are taken up together, since the same are interconnected.
20. To summarise, it is the case of the plaintiff that he had provided a new lead to the defendant no.1 for the personal loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla and that the plaintiff had processed the said lead, and, hence, the plaintiff was entitled to commission under the agreement. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant no.1 that the matter of personal loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla was an already existing lead and that Mr. Kabul Chawla had already approached CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 32 of 53Ms. Geetika Vaish, representative of the defendant no.1 in May, 2012 for availing the loan, and that the loan sanction process of Mr. Kabul Chawla was being followed up by the defendant no.1, and hence, being a duplicate lead by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not entitled to any commission.
21. The email correspondence between the plaintiff, the defendant no.1's representatives and Mr. Kabul Chawla and his representatives Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia, filed on the record, shows that the plaintiff was involved in the loan application of Mr. Kabul Chawla since inception. Vide Email dated 18.08.2012 (part of Ex.PW-1/3) Mr. Deepak Joshi of HDFC (defendant no.1) sent to the plaintiff, the list of papers/documents which were required in the case of Mr. Kabul Chawla. This email and attached list of documents was forwarded by the plaintiff to Mr. Jasmeet Singh vide Email dated 19.08.2012 (part of Ex.PW-1/3). In this Email dated 19.08.2012, the plaintiff inter alia asked for the duly signed application form along with the processing fee. Vide Email dated 21.08.2012 Ex.PW-1/5, Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia informed the plaintiff that the documents were ready and asked the same to be collected. Vide Email dated 29.08.2012 (Ex.PW-1/7), the plaintiff informed Mr. Kabul Chawla's representatives i.e. Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia to provide the application form and processing fees cheque. The plaintiff further informed as follows: "As per the progress in the case, we just might CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 33 of 53strike the magic figure of INR 55 Cr as per my on going discussions with the HDFC team." The fact that the representative of the defendant no.1 HDFC i.e. Mr. Deepak Joshi had provided the plaintiff with the list of documents for the case of Mr. Kabul Chawla which inter alia included the application form and processing fee document goes to show that prior to Mr. Kabul Chawla applying for the loan through the plaintiff, Mr. Kabul Chawla had never independently given any application form or processing fee to the defendant no.1 for the personal loan. Otherwise, there was no reason why the defendant no.1 should be asking for these documents to be submitted. The fact that the plaintiff was the single point of contact for the defendant no.1 HDFC as well as for Mr. Kabul Chawla and his representatives in respect of the loan application of Mr. Kabul Chawla goes to show that the loan was applied by Mr. Kabul Chawla through the plaintiff only and it was the plaintiff only who was facilitating the processing of the loan application. There is no reason why the plaintiff should have discussions with the HDFC team for loan of Rs. 55 Crores for Mr. Kabul Chawla as mentioned in the plaintiff's Email dated 29.08.2012 in case the plaintiff was not the one who was pursing Mr. Kabul Chawla's loan application with the defendant no.1 HDFC. Pursuant to the plaintiff's Email dated 29.08.2012, Mr. Jasmeet Singh sent Email dated 29.08.2012 Ex.PW-1/8 to Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia with copy marked to the plaintiff, asking that the three balance documents be completed and also asking that time slots CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 34 of 53may be fixed for arranging meeting between Mr. Kabul Chawla and a senior HDFC personnel to complete the loan disbursal process. Subsequently, vide Email dated 31.08.2012, Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia informed the plaintiff that the application form had been got signed and would be delivered with the cheque and computation of income. He further stated to the plaintiff that: "Further, as informed by you Managing Director of HDFC will be meeting with Mr. Chawla. I request that time available with her be informed to us alongwith venue to meet her." The fact that the representative of Mr. Kabul Chawla was providing the documents to the plaintiff and asking about the timing of the meeting to be informed shows that Mr. Kabul Chawla was engaging with the defendant no.1 bank for the loan through the plaintiff only. On 03.09.2012 there were Emails (Ex.PW-1/10A, Ex.PW-1/10B and Ex.PW-1/10C) exchanged between the plaintiff and Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia for collection of the documents by the plaintiff for submission to the defendant no.1 bank. Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia asked the plaintiff to collect the documents at a given time and also asked to be informed of the time, date and venue of the proposed meeting with the Managing Director of the defendant no.1 bank. The plaintiff informed that one Mr. Vikas would be coming to collect the documents from the office of Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia. The plaintiff further informed that the date and time of the meeting would be confirmed from the defendant no.1 bank once the documentation was completed and that he would update as soon as the details CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 35 of 53were received. Vide Emails dated 05.09.2012 (Ex.PW-1/11-A, 11-B and 11-C) exchanged between the plaintiff and Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia, the plaintiff asked Mr. Bhatia whether it was alright to give reference of Mr. Gagan Randev and Mr. Chetan Sabharwal for Mr. Chawla's loan to which Mr. Bhatia replied that it was fine. The aforesaid Emails clearly go to show that it was the plaintiff who was the point of contact for the defendant no.1 bank and Mr. Kabul Chawla and his representatives for the loan and that it was the plaintiff only who was facilitating the loan process of Mr. Chawla's loan with the defendant no.1.
22. Till the aforesaid Emails of 05.09.2012, the things seem to have gone smoothly. However, the Email dated 07.09.2012 Ex.PW-1/12-A from the plaintiff to Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Jasmeet Singh, representatives of Mr. Kabul Chawla, shows that subsequently, the defendant no.1 bank had raised an issue regarding the loan being applied through the plaintiff. Vide the Email dated 07.09.2012 (Friday), the plaintiff informed the representatives of Mr. Kabul Chawla that the meeting was scheduled with Mr. Shivangh Sharma of HDFC (North India Head) for Monday and that he would confirm the time later in the day. The plaintiff further informed that Ms. Geetika of HDFC Marketing team was now creating ruckus in the bank regarding loan application through the plaintiff. To this, vide Email dated 07.09.2012 Ex.PW-1/12-B, Mr. Bhatia informed the plaintiff that the meeting would be at 3 p.m. on Monday CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 36 of 53and also stated "We understand all that you have said in the mail." Thereafter, there are further Emails exchanged in the month of September 2012. Vide Email dated 12.09.2012 Ex.P-2, Mr. Shivangh Sharma of the defendant no.1 bank informed Mr. Bhatia of certain queries in respect of the loan application of Mr. Kabul Chawla on which clarifications were required. Importantly, the plaintiff is also marked a copy in this Email. It appears from the record that however, during the later part of September 2012 or early October 2012, the defendant no.1 bank treated the loan application as having being directly made by Mr. Kabul Chawla with the defendant no.1 bank and not through the plaintiff, and consequently, the plaintiff was no longer kept involved in the loan application process. As a result, the plaintiff sent Email dated 11.10.2012 Ex.PW-1/16 to the defendant no.1 bank protesting against this and giving a detailed chronology and timeline of the events from the beginning till date.
23. However, the defendant no.1 bank continued with the loan application process of Mr. Kabul Chawla and kept the plaintiff out of the loop. Ultimately, the loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla was sanctioned and disbursed. Upon becoming aware of this, the plaintiff issued the legal notice dated 31.05.2013 Ex.P-3 to the defendant no.1 bank asking for his commission. There was no response to this legal notice by the defendant and the plaintiff filed the present suit.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 37 of 5324. As discussed above, the Email correspondence between the parties clearly shows that the loan application of Mr. Kabul Chawla was made through the plaintiff only. This loan application process started in early August 2012. The plaintiff has shown that the defendant no.1 bank was seeking the documents including the application form in respect of the loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla through the plaintiff only. Further, Mr. Kabul Chawla's representatives i.e. Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia were dealing with the defendant no.1 bank through the plaintiff only. It was the plaintiff only who had collected the loan application form and processing fee cheque for Mr. Kabul Chawla and had deposited the same with the bank. The plaintiff remained involved in the loan application process till the end of September or beginning of October, 2012. As already observed, there is no reason why the defendant no.1 bank would ask the plaintiff for the loan application form and processing fee charges in respect of the loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla, in case Mr. Kabul Chawla had already independently already applied for loan with the defendant no.1 bank. Further, there is no reason why the defendant no.1 bank would be dealing directly with the plaintiff for the loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla and why Mr. Kabul Chawla's representatives would also be dealing with the defendant no.1 bank through the plaintiff only, if the loan application had not been filed through the plaintiff and Mr. Kabul Chawla was not dealing with the bank for his personal loan through the plaintiff. All this goes to show that it was the plaintiff who had provided the lead to the CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 38 of 53defendant no.1 bank in respect of the loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla.
25. In the face of the above-discussed Email correspondence, the onus shifted heavily upon the defendant no.1 bank to show that the lead for Mr. Kabul Chawla's loan was a duplicate lead and that Mr. Kabul Chawla had already applied for loan with the defendant no.1 bank prior to the plaintiff giving the lead. However, the testimony of the defendant's own witness DW-2 Ms. Geetika Vaish demolishes the defendant no.1 bank's case. The defendant's witness DW-2 Ms. Geetika Vaish has deposed in her cross-examination that when any person applied for a loan, the file was logged-in into the system of the defendant company. She has further deposed that the documents which were required at the initial stage of logging in the files were: i) income tax documents, ii) KYC documents, iii) property documents, iv) application form, and v) processing fee. She has further deposed that the processing of the loan starts after collecting the application and the documents. She has further deposed that it was not necessary that until and unless the entire requirement of documents was completed, the processing of the loan would not start, and that the processing could start and in the meanwhile, the further documents could be asked for. This is very crucial. What emerges from the deposition of DW-2 is that whenever any person applied for a loan, such person would be submitting the application for the loan and the processing fee along with CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 39 of 53the necessary documents. Further, whenever any application for loan would be made, a new file would be logged-in into the system of the defendant. DW-2 has further deposed that although the original documents are returned the customers, however, the original loan application and the copies of the KYC documents were retained in the office of the defendant.
26. Hence, in the present case, in case Mr. Kabul Chawla had earlier already applied for a loan individually from the defendant in May 2012 even prior to the lead given by the plaintiff, then in such case, the file with respect to the loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla would have been already logged in into the defendant no.1's system. In such case, Mr. Kabul Chawla would also have submitted an application form for the loan along withe processing fess, even if the documentation part of the process would have still been pending. Further, in case any such application was independently made by Mr. Kabul Chawla earlier, such loan application by Mr. Kabul Chawla himself would have been retained in the record of the defendant. However, crucially, the defendant has not filed on the record any such loan application by Mr. Kabul Chawla seeking personal loan. The defendant has also not given details of any new file being logged in upon Mr. Kabul Chawla applying directly for loan with the defendant. In her cross- examination, DW-2 has admitted that the original application for loan submitted by Mr. Kabul Chawla and CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 40 of 53all other documents required for sanction of the loan have not been placed on record in the present suit.
27. The defendant has not come forward to give any details of any previous logging-in of the file for Mr. Chawla's loan at any time prior to the logging-in of the file under the plaintiff's code. The defendant has also not come forward with any prior application form by Mr. Kabul Chawla independently for the loan. It is not conceivable that the defendant would hold back such a document from the Court in case the same was in existence. Thus, the only inference which can be drawn is that actually there was no such document in existence, and, hence, the same was not produced by the defendant. Thus, it is clearly proved that Mr. Kabul Chawla's loan file was not logged-in independently as a direct customer at any point of time prior to the logging-in of the file under the plaintiff's code. Clearly, Mr. Kabul Chawla had also not made any loan application independently and directly to the defendant prior to the providing of the lead by the plaintiff to the defendant regarding the personal loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla.
28. Furthermore, during her cross-examination, DW-2 has admitted that the loan application was filed through the plaintiff only, and not through anyone else. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW-2 is extracted hereunder:
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.Page No. 41 of 53
"Q. It is put to you that neither you had nay discussion with Mr. Kabul Chawla regarding sanction of present loan in question to him nor he applied for sanction of the loan with our (sic your) company through anyone except the plaintiff. What do you have to say?
A. I had discussion with Mr. Chawla personally and he applied for loan from our company but I do not know through whom he had applied. Only the loan application was filed through Anukaran Malik which I came to know later on."
29. Thus, it is clearly proved from the evidence on record that the only application for loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla which was available with the defendant was only the loan application which was given by the plaintiff herein. There was no other loan application which was made by Mr. Kabul Chawla independently at any point of time prior to the plaintiff making the application for Mr. Kabul Chawla.
30. Further, when it is the case of the defendant that Mr. Kabul Chawla had independently applied for loan prior to even the plaintiff submitting the application for Mr. Kabul Chawla, and the onus to prove this was upon the defendant, then it was for the defendant to call Mr. Kabul Chawla or his representative Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia for examination as witnesses. The defendant no.1 has also relied upon the Email dated 19.09.2012 Ex.D-1 from Mr. CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 42 of 53Inderbir Singh Bhatia to the plaintiff informing that Mr. Chawla was already with the defendant no.1 and had submitted the documents to them in this regard. However, the defendant did not call Mr. Bhatia as a witness to depose to prove the assertion which was made by Mr. Bhatia in his Email dated 19.09.2012. The defendant also did not call Mr. Kabul Chawla or any other of his representatives who was involved in the loan process as witnesses to depose regarding having applied for loan independently prior to the submission of his application by the plaintiff. There is no explanation provided by the defendant as to why it did not call Mr. Kabul Chawla or Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia or any other representative of Mr. Chawla as a witness. In such circumstances, an adverse inference would be drawn that the defendant did not call Mr. Kabul Chawla or Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia or any other representative of Mr. Chawla involved in the case as witnesses as the defendant was well aware that these persons may not have finally supported the case of the defendant no.1 bank and may not have withstood cross-examination.
31. The testimony of the PW-3 Sh. Deepak Joshi is also relevant. Sh. Deepak Joshi was a former employee who had been working with HDFC Sales at Vasant Vihar during the period from 2008 to 2012. PW-3 was summoned by the plaintiff to depose. PW-3 has deposed that he had got the BSA Agreement signed by the plaintiff. PW-3 has also deposed that the file for grant of loan of Rs. 56 Crores to CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 43 of 53Mr. Kabul Chawla was prepared through the plaintiff as a business sourcing associate of the defendant no.1 and that he had received the documents from the plaintiff directly initially and later that he had sent the email to the plaintiff for the pending documents and has in this regard referred to the Emails Ex.PW-1/2A, Ex.PW-1/2B and Ex.PW-1/3. He has also deposed that the agent of the plaintiff Sh. Vikas Singh had submitted the pending documents at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi office personally to him. In his cross-examination, PW-3 had deposed that after fifteen to twenty days of logging in of the file in the name of the plaintiff for sanction of the loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla, he was told by Mr. Shivang Sharma, Head of HDFC Sales that the file would be logged in the code of HDFC Ltd. as the borrower had already approached HDFC Ltd. in respect of the loan. From the testimony of PW-3, it is clear that the file for the sanction of the loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla had been logged in only through the code of the plaintiff and there was no prior logging in of the file. It is only subsequent to the logging in of the file in the name of the plaintiff, that after fifteen to twenty days, the defendant no.1 sought to change the situation from logging in of the file in the name of the plaintiff to directly in the name of the defendant no.1. Again, in this regard, the defendant no.1 has not produced any application form or processing documents which the borrower Mr. Kabul Chawla had filed with the defendant no.1 for loan at any point of time prior to the application form submitted by the plaintiff. Hence, the adverse inference drawn is that the application CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 44 of 53for loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla was initiated only through the plaintiff and not at any prior point of time. The defendant no.1 has also not summoned as witnesses Mr. Kabul Chawla or his representatives who were involved in the loan transaction, and, hence, again an adverse inference would be drawn against the defendant no.1.
32. In so far as the defendant's witness DW-1 Mr. Aju Ashok is concerned, he had deposed merely based on the record as the authorised representative of the defendant no.1 and he had no personal knowledge about the loan process in respect of Mr. Kabul Chawla. He has admitted in his cross- examination that his knowledge about the facts of the case was as per the record of the defendant no.1. He has further admitted that he had never met Mr. Kabul Chawla, Mr. Inderbir Bhatia or any other official of BPTP Ltd. nor had he talked to them at any point of time. Hence, DW-1 has no personal knowledge about the loan process in question since he was not involved in the same, and, hence, nothing really turns on the testimony of DW-1.
33. The case of the defendant no.1 really centred around the testimony of the DW-2 Ms. Geetika Vaish. DW-2 has deposed in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit that Mr. Kabul Chawla had in May, 2012 visited the defendant no.1 and had met Mrs. Renu Karnad, the MD of the defendant no.1 and had discussion in respect of project loans as well as about his individual loan for buying property in Delhi. DW-2 has further deposed that she was CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 45 of 53deputed to look after the requirements for the individual home loan of Mr. Kabul Chawla and that she had immediately started corresponding with Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia, the then vice president of BPTP, and that emails were sent to him through the DW-2 and Mr. K.P. Aggarwal.
34. I have given careful consideration to the testimony of DW-2, and in my considered view, the testimony of DW-2 cannot be relied upon in the absence of any corroboration by the testimony of any other persons involved in the loan sanction process. As already mentioned, DW-1 has no personal knowledge of the matter, and as such, his testimony is mostly immaterial. The defendant no.1 has not called as witnesses, the central characters in the loan sanction process i.e. Mr. Kabul Chawla or Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia. Hence, there is no corroboration of the testimony of the DW-2 Ms. Geetika Vaish by these central characters. Although DW-2 has also referred to Mrs. Renu Karnad, MD of the defendant no.1 and to Mr. K.P. Aggarwal of the defendant no.1 who were allegedly involved in the loan process even prior to the plaintiff coming into the picture, however, the defendant no.1 has not called these persons for examination. Hence, not only is there no corroboration to the testimony of DW-2 but this also leads to an adverse inference being drawn against the testimony of DW-2 for failure to call such central characters in the transaction as witnesses.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 46 of 5335. DW-2 has very clearly admitted in her cross-examination that: "It is correct that when any person applies for a loan, the file is logged-in our system of the company." In the face of this admission, there is absolutely no explanation by DW-2 as to why no file was logged-in for the loan process of Mr. Kabul Chawla in May 2012 or June 2012 itself if Mr. Kabul Chawla had already directly approached the defendant no.1 for loan in May 2012 itself.
36. Further, although DW-2 deposed that when she came to know about the loan process of Mr. Kabul Chawla being conducted by the HDFC Sales through Mr. Anukaran Malik, she informed Mr. Shivang Sharma telephonically that DW-2 was directly in touch with Mr. Chawla's team for the same loan proposal, however, again, the defendant no.1 has not called Mr. Shivang Sharma as a witness to corroborate the testimony of DW-2.
37. In so far as the Emails which have been referred to by DW-2 in her examination-in-chief are concerned, it is only the Emails dated 31.05.2012, 10.06.2012 and 10.08.2012 which are dated prior to the Email communications in which the plaintiff was a party in the transaction. From the Email dated 18.08.2012 Ex.PW-1/2A onwards, the plaintiff was always involved in the loan process and was either a sender or recipient in the emails prior to being ultimately removed from the loop by the defendant no.1. The Emails dated 31.05.2012 (Ex.DW-1/B), 10.06.2012 and 10.08.2012 (Ex.DW-1/C) are purported to have been CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 47 of 53sent to Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia in respect of the Mr. Chawla's individual loan. However, these emails seem suspect since these emails do not even mentioned the email addresses from which the emails were sent and the email addresses to which the emails were sent. Mr. Inderbir Singh Bhatia has also not been called as a witness by the defendant no.1 to corroborate that any such emails were received by him. As already mentioned, the defendant no.1 has also failed to explain why the case of Mr. Chawla's loan was not already logged-in as a direct customer in May 2012 itself, in case Mr. Chawla had already applied for the loan directly with the defendant no.1 in May 2012 itself.
38. Hence, the testimony of DW-2 cannot be relied upon due to lack of any corroboration by the testimony of the relevant persons who were central to the transaction and who were never called as witnesses by the defendant no.1. The testimony of DW-2 cannot also be relied upon due to absence of any explanation as to why the case of Mr. Kabul Chawla was not logged in as a direct customer in May 2012 itself. What appears to have really happened is that the company of Mr. Kabul Chawla i.e. BPTP was already a customer of the defendant no.1 bank in respect of certain projects which were being developed by BPTP and there were discussions regarding loans in respect of these projects. However, in so far as the personal loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla is concerned, the same was never the concern of the defendant no.1 bank prior to the plaintiff CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 48 of 53coming into the picture, since otherwise there is no reason why the defendant no.1 bank would not have logged-in a file in the name of Mr. Kabul Chawla as a direct customer in respect of the individual loan. It seems that after Mr. Kabul Chawla's loan was already being processed under the business code of the plaintiff, some officials in the defendant no.1 company unfairly sought to exclude the plaintiff from the process and to deprive him of his commission only on the ground that BPTP Ltd. was already the customer of the defendant no.1 in respect of certain other projects. This was most dishonest and unfair on the part of the defendant no.1, since the individual loan to Mr. Kabul Chawla had no connection with the project loans in respect of BPTP Ltd.
39. Furthermore, the plaintiff had issued the legal notice dated 31.05.2013 to the defendant no.1 calling for payment of the commission amount. In this legal notice dated 31.05.2013, the plaintiff had made a categorical assertion that the plaintiff's providing of Mr. Kabul Chawla's case for personal loan was a new lead and was not a duplicate lead. In the written statement, the defendant no.1 has admitted the receipt of the legal notice dated 31.05.2013 from the plaintiff. The undisputed position is also that the defendant no.1 never replied to this legal notice disputing the allegations of the plaintiff. This also raises an adverse inference against the defendant no.1. Normally any financial institution such as the defendant no.1 would treat such a legal notice with seriousness and would rebut the CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 49 of 53allegations made therein at the first opportunity in case the same were being denied. However, the defendant's lack of any response to the legal notice leads to an adverse inference that the defendant was not seriously disputing the case of the plaintiff. The defendant's explanation in the written statement that no reply was given since the plaintiff had been orally informed to withdraw his legal notice and the plaintiff had agreed that he would not agitate this issue in future does not inspire confidence. Ordinarily, in the face of such legal notices, the financial institutions do not function in such a manner to not place their objection on the record.
40. Thus, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has been able to prove that he had provided a new lead to the defendant for the home loan for Mr. Kabul Chawla and the defendant has been unable to prove that Mr. Kabul Chawla had independently already applied for the loan prior in time and that the lead provided by the plaintiff was a duplicate lead.
41. In so far as the defendant has argued that the BSA Agreement was executed only on 27.08.2012 and not prior to that, I do not see how this argument can, in any case, be of any assistance to the defendant. The fact of the matter is that although the loan process for Mr. Kabul Chawla had started prior to 27.08.2012, however, the same continued even after 27.08.2012. Hence, clearly, even going by the case of the defendant that the BSA Agreement was CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 50 of 53executed only on 27.08.2012, since the fact of the matter is that the loan application process had continued and had concluded only after the execution of the BSA Agreement, hence, in any case, the BSA Agreement would have been applicable to the transaction in question and the plaintiff would have been entitled to commission.
42. The argument of the defendant no.1 that the plaintiff was not even eligible to become business sourcing agent of the defendant no.1 since he was not a self-employed financial advisor is also wholly without any substance. It is not even the case of the defendant no.1 that it had ever raised any issue with the plaintiff regarding his eligibility to become business sourcing agent or that the defendant no.1 had ever issued any notice to the plaintiff in this regard or that the defendant no.1 had ever sought to terminate or cancel the agreement on this ground. Hence, this argument raised by the defendant is wholly bogus and has been merely raised as an afterthought.
43. In so far as the defendant has contended that the plaintiff had not raised any invoice for the commission amount is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit, since it is the undisputed position that the plaintiff had issued the notice to the defendant no.1 seeking the commission amount.
44. The contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had not proved that actually amount of Rs. 56 Crores was disbursed to Mr. Kabul Chawla towards loan is also CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 51 of 53wholly without merit. The plaintiff has clearly pleaded in paragraph 6(xvii) of the plaint that he came to know through reliable sources that the defendant no.1 had disbursed loan amount of Rs. 56 Crores to Mr. Kabul Chawla. In response to the paragraph 6(xvii) of the plaint, the defendant no.1 has stated in the paragraph-wise reply portion of the written statement that the defendant was not duty-bound to provide the details of disbursement of loan to its customers to the plaintiff since the plaintiff had no interest in the same. However, there is no denial in the written statement that the defendant no.1 had disbursed loan amount of Rs. 56 Crores to Mr. Kabul Chawla. Hence, the defendant no.1 is already deemed to have admitted the fact that loan amount of Rs. 56 Crores was disbursed to Mr. Kabul Chawla. The sole ground raised by the defendant no.1 in its written statement to deny the plaintiff's claim for sum of Rs. 16,80,000/- as commission was that the lead of Mr. Kabul Chawla was a duplicate lead. This ground of objection raised by the defendant no.1 has already been negatived in the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs. The defendant no.1 has not denied that taking the loan disbursement amount of Rs. 56 Crores, under the contract, the commission would be quantified as Rs. 16,80,000/-. Hence, in so far as the quantification of the commission amount of Rs. 16,80,000/- is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the defendant. The defendant was only disputing the entitlement of the plaintiff to the commission under the contract, which objection already stands negatived.
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 52 of 5345. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff would be entitled for decree for sum of Rs. 16,80,000/- against the defendant no.1 towards his rightful commission towards providing the lead of Mr. Kabul Chawla for the personal loan. The defendant no.1 had unjustly deprived the plaintiff of his commission. Since the transaction was commercial in nature, it would also be appropriate to grant interest to the plaintiff @ 12% p.a. from the date of the plaintiff's legal notice i.e. 31.05.2013 till the date of actual realisation.
46. All the Issues are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
DECISION
47. In the result, decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 only for sum of Rs. 16,80,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 31.05.2013 till the date of actual realisation. Costs are decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Pleader's fee is computed as Rs. 50,000/-. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
48. File be consigned to record room after the due compliances.
Digitally signed by SATYABRATA SATYABRATA PANDA PANDA Date: 2025.09.08 16:47:16 +0530 (SATYABRATA PANDA) District Judge-04 Judge Code- DL01057 PHC/New Delhi/29.08.2025
CS No.55486/2016 Anukaran Malik Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation & Ors.
Page No. 53 of 53