Karnataka High Court
Ambika Finance And Investment ... vs Gopikishan S/O Narsingdas Somani on 3 November, 2010
Bench: N.Kumar, Subhash B Adi
fli 1111' 1lI(.H COt RI 01 K½R%Al \K
(IR(I.I1BFNCII l(.LIlARG
I)lI 1) 1111% liii ' i)V )l \O'SI 'Ii I R 0
'U I
Till Il0\ 1311' MR ii SItU Ni K' MU
\1)
1111 II0"'I3I I MR Jt SIX I SUBlIAil I i)I
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.231112006
B! LEN
rnbikIin r t&I'i tin i Cwjx iii
Naraaxc hvaI i Builclin& Nc I ux' i
vJiih3Tga in,
B Is Par ncr
liuiods€ SI i itt Mel ii
sn 1xut( r%( Burnt
RI 'i ILva ( z1 a8 10)
1
.\gr hnut 44 ear'.. Oct .13usiiin.
R o 1aktarnpui a (sulbarga 38. 102
SrnIa% S o I\ixidiiiansz'a I'awai
4.gt boui 12 tars 0 C I3usincs%
R 1 Maktain ta (
, ulbuga ,h0
1
1) Raniakant S o Panclui angsa 1'awai
Agc t\hout 40 yeats OC c .l3usincss
14,n Makianipura. (sulbariza :85 102
e Balcikii'Jiiiri S 0 P€uidiiiangsa Paw n
Age: About 33 vcar. Oec:[kislnes'.
RIo Iaktainpui a, Gulbarga 585102
3) ('ha ndrakintsa S/n Naras aul Rio
Kaunalapure. Age: 4
boui 63 vcar.
(kci3u1ness Rio Photanigalli,
flulharua 585 102.
.1. SmuM cnakshi /0 Vi4rnu f3aiad
Age About 18 eai',. On .llnusrliokl
H/n K1113 C oloin. Iand Road.
bulbarga 565 102
5: STni.Si1u hutia We'. I ainan'.u Trfli.1
sLt bout ul t a 0 C I lot t ii 31(1
it SnahDbl t. Itl&fl i-, U-.
ft ' 1s
w
1 " ' ' I rLLisa L ai a
4 t Sic -.) . i
P.,, I{J I jtj( 1 j.•ji•
(':'tssaç' 3.,..(jt
i 'it ai.'i! I3$',' \,1.•._ ,
'r• 1 V.iiii_ai 1' \' t..t \ .!
T)
I
'I
H, n 1 2,0 1aktamputa
rq & fht. ('llbuI2a
2 Suit .l.aiIt.ui%;i tli;uuIuiaI%u ( .anI.
•'p' 1ajox Oc L3u'iti s,
H Slzatib€--a. I .tIllhU.. I
3 1thfl%a Vt nkilsi 1
xUJ iralbi
Agv: Major Ocr: bu%inn.
R o Nagan slw at building
Gulbarga 3a 102.
4 Smt.Siiakunthala W/n 'tedpi tkash (has in
Age: Iajtr. C kc .1ku%ehnId
Rfl Shahha.cai Cirulbaiga
kfl%liflct jtIrn Kuilkarni.
kge:Maoi.Oa &fll(( C o rnbikiIna (C
Vagareshwar building N't' lhnga .'a'N1
Gulbargi 8b 102
Arpcndcri'
113v ri Sat hit' Mahaian \h hr H I
Sn %miy4 ½plc Ad I' {
H3 and R4 %trved
S Dliii S lu h knrkt \ci' u H -,
1111% RE ½ •'.
f'Ieii I lit I j(VLi.'i
s
t :,i jhe j'i'It.!eriI 1
itid it1L( n)1)t S ) 'OOu ti
it t III!. ( .11 i_fl S! H I :a l.a L.a 1 Ct JL' •1t '.tj
t I 't: ii '.
n
9
I. U t .
• d c..
-- •_1_( ,( 'o.n 'n .'_ P ,' .i -.' .h SI_tn'' :1
.;.. sUBIIAsHADIJ. 0. i... . • --
3 U DGj(E 1%_T
liii ipptal i t% itic dehuilan )n- 1 . 5 6 6 intl C)
lçflt% U ' kmn i 1 ct ti(jS\ o32000di 116
ugu%1"OO( )rltIi ii II 1
d C 1
4 114c r i 'Gilti'I,
2. Rrpoiiae in \n I pliunula. Re%pondrnl \'%.2. 4 7
intl 9 art the it rn.unIii delencl'tnu...
.3 ror ilit crncntt c i. ft 11 be nkm 1 is per
heir aika' t'el it ii titil o i
4 f
1
Plau
lit .oa
u
1 nr a va. .t..,uuis' iht (1eIc--nda11s lot
t n"r nf Rc... I 5GtWJO/ ij utihet ¶'j'J' inn ant. t jsr ii! iii.
plaintili k tI,af siihtki Im.iiir' :arlra 1
n Ls1itd II •t
"
1 .za.u.
a itaist' ft I Iia. t £ flp').it.u1. l) it .idtt . No' 1 k aTC 'I'.
rar ti
r
t . LI ft..'jfl1 \ i' i ' •i ft1._.J '..c.
I t it 1 J" LU. I (j \ ( t.•t' a ' (El a•1.. nr t4h I
r. it •i _. % ( i .f1 r
• i. .
..r • !:. .
Ira Fl.-- cr,c i'' it.. .' --
s..• I
t -- ( > I' '.. ii ..ctcr..
" 1), )(
fl,,. .' I
ri I.t r 'r. 1.'
I I a r .
Rs 1.30 000 in tile sW-I I hiatt e C )rpolauon on 25.1 199
'flit aweed inc of intere%t ''ii 11w (lej)n%I1 w.t' R%. I t" per
at nuni Or iii datt (ii deix, 11. kit-nd nit \n. 1 3 told the
p1 wit ill hut IIe 'I depoMi i 'r'eiplc ai es.li,ui' tc ci t Ii ii. a
trrnp(n u.iv I tvtipt 1% is-,twd. lurther. the ttinporary receipt will
be repl'u ed wit Ii the Imt.d deposit eec ijfl nee the printcd F.D
depo%ft receipt book 1% rteeivtd f-3e1ie1nt the words ni
deknd ant \c 1 C phuntdl c cepti d thc ttmpoi uv E D at eipt
l%sue(I b rlefendant No.9 the Linaszer 'q the 'aid Finance
C nrporatinn Ilnun er deli ndant ?%ns q nd it) lid pnt ,scaw thy
pnni at retuiar '"req I clespi Ic I he repat ed rrqucst and
dt man I ii ice L 'in plu itill ubMquer ii laintiff c
(fl1 liii i)j 'li JJI IV41" ini K h.id ..c n, - i' flnIanahad !n
jr
ar n "c 1(1 'il PC U lji' 1(1' ar iii Ite
•3f 1% .1, n --i 4
1
t4 t I-. t l,r.jj% ,'):1, i. lit L :tLi
Ut. ii'ii I
U' ii I '11 ...' \j'f' • yr )eu- d'r
\ C ,'tc ., a Ptf i. 1) re -- r . i a
.. sit t t,I It
1t• IjLI • T •I
2_ I? i.r • it I 'Ic t fl it
C .,. .
,... e-., , . 1 ,. _
•
--. •.•• • . a • % I
3 I '
cn4ciope on 29. 4.199 In Ox pl.iintill In a itgistcred post. ihicl
liii philntifl jot med only ''n 3.3 197. On opeitint the %aid
1flV( inpc Tilt j)1 Until? t(qnIai I Ud I flipt't flu-- lfl( I 1% inlennecl
t) flit kininct. Ccrnoi iier L's lett z inc i 199 Nati 'i
ilit ( oiitltic t ol the 11111111CC C orpoiatioii. he i1spe ted Jotil play
1w tht tiekiidaiits Delendant NC) 4 one ni the partners %ent a
reply to the plaintiff intc'ralfcz stuing that lit has i-tilted from the
1mm c C'orporatnn n 222 199 nd Lu lid not cnd an
letter ft) 'he plaintific letter Plairitill lnund that the partners ni
the rnrpnratinn anti detenclant \n 10 thu Managri hare cheated
im Dcf niant \ 10 '.i wo kng in lit (it's Munkipal
Corporation ulbarp and It Wci' 1ookint. alter ihi all tir ol the
1 orporaIioi; 'IJ l)ttNjIl ')l ii Iit arid lit wi' -wning the
'bc ru isis 'hq n it I ndan e.b r 4 11W C. lj
f
0 l
1 it 1 1 -
n• :.e .I.AV ''..jj:t .i 1 Ij.)! S%hit il:
'
;
1 i ,er -- .?_ It: -
..O - • -ir, 1 -( 1;__
It l( I- '•
Ii
J.4 I tkc . - .111 ijt
- On
-'--! ii '--I : IV:. 'L 'i' -- • .: • -s. ft'
.1 -,- • •h (. I
Fina.nrr ('.tI;wwalinn I'IainiitI .i'. Inn ed tn hit' i private
conipiur I wainsl thc dck nclai Is Ic icc ci.. x'. of mount md
'I". --tit mr ttnnrn
3 On cnicc )t ummon Jelenlait 's) .1 3 U 8
apprai' i ui fuie liii irial otai ihi otuth one .iclvoc'ate. deiendant
No 2 tiuoutEh an Mba dioc itt left ndant io 3 since dcc eascd
Iii', legal reprcseiitatives eie )rnujlI on ri-c orci rid lht3
appeared Ii iouuh alit lii wi Act' a' -ate deli nu tnt. No 4 appear.--. I
' par 11th tic fendar 1 \o 9 ilo tppt are i 'eparatel> through 'I e
ci '(alt'
-
6 (1(1 it I l- 11cm late ncr len in
tue alieczatiuir' A mc' j'IaiH'ill that lel.-iiciunl \u. 10 v i ;w1r1
h of tic at ct I IC I' r
eva.. aQea.i .t r .ht it Iti t ( I ,II, ' Ihtt L-! 'I' .11.11 Ll1
'J' ler
d
1 ur N , '. j;f ¶j;
ktCZt , c'i -t' 11'i ' fRI-ti
S. K I
1k 1. t;j_
! iii 'It It. jt'i_,c '
.u'l. )fl ' 4
C 1 11 ii
1-- t_ . ! '' I Ir .
I,
--
..' I - It,- "'I
-S
'I- 3J
war on the agr' i'd r.ite 'J linen •: per annum. They jiqo
dtnkd that tht dc fendant Ms 9 and 10 had wtccd to issuc
punted Fjt'i flepo%i! it'utijIt Li' lilt' i)1tinhli1 and €thi, Lit turd the
"ut of it mponn 'eceipt by dc'end tnt No 9 Ih pe 11lca11
£ ontendc d that the I inanc't ( 01 poration has not accepted any
amount il-nm the pkuinilL aS '.neli. 1U'0ii of fl payment does
not arist and fun titi ilieged that ilic illegatlons in thc plaint
cifl' creattd md tnnc'nciecl 'tory for the p'rp of filIng 1)1 tIn.
suIt Alt the documents produced In the plaunfifi in 'upport ol
his Cast' are nnc'nctcci .in I created for the pItrpn%c of filing of
the %ult lilt aJlegalm.'ii that the piaiiitiQ lodliteli It t--omJ)IainL
helm th I obcc. rnd din ultd t iakc It tioi as also lemed
I urtliet alleut'd tilal 'lit It 'n" n'' au',r of riion lr,r 1111112 the
'411
-- Di Itir1 pit \c' 3.' --' tj.trij.rk hurl iZllIe I 1Ilt-u ill! au!
ii in m 1' ' U
%i.tt ,jf , lilt i..Ut..,'(i _,dt.l r. •. r .'' ;ct. s. i.,.
r
.'
41
''ft i -- I $ •'' " I. 1 it 1 ') iii 11 ll 1
1 I I It £ I ) I
),jgj I.', .r.. ''. : !. '..___' ..
I 't
('orporation 11w nihtr ailetatu'n% '. to the tlcpo%i1 niade bc tin
plaintiti it the instance of the delendant to 10 md Issut 1
'tnipor.'n taript ifl tlit di 1
f'iicla
i t \i) eltiti J)tI)iiiI%i' 10 i%%Ur
printed reec ipi wms also t
r
e iucd 1k tat d ii t u r es nK
plauniil ha,. incide him a a party .md lit' 'vould take LU lion ibm
the defamation and iilegc d that. defendant No.9 1 mas coliwic d
with the plaiiitiii br time tiling ci time stilt mid mimade lalse
aflegatioim :Lgalmi%t di lcmmdaimt 'o. 10 .uiti further 'aatcd that.
thc it is no dti%( 01 a' lion ig mist &fendant No 0 ant ahkgc d
ihaim the %uft is liable jo bt dl%phj%%ed tjlhi 'o%t
'4. 1)efcnciaiii \ct2 -tjso dt tiled td 11w alleged deposit and
fuzthc.r diegad at nc toes not irt tic it] 1' ane
bu'It1C%% 'ii I Th
jt (._ :11 Vt '1 h'i I(1l j'% ii
t Hilt I partorri. .eI't lIft
%% 1' it I ii II Ii I 1 4. I 1 1 11
11 c. ln-( ti .Ir'.rc r%S.1i>, !' it . ' c
.
5 r P f)fl '--('Ti €:ac'-.
d ii n it pi if tat ?' 0:' lit i
i
tc '1 )
r'.
't e ,l ' i• uP
', Tr •'. t. \. 1.. '
1
n. •, ',,I
. ' • . --.t :j--T S nj
•t it ,' . ' 1'.
4( U
ft L - 1
'U
that. tic worked a', tlic Max a°t r in hit s iid 1 hiance (orpoiatlon
lit fiiitlwi adnutieci mat. at ilit zcqti.' "I (lefendata 'vi. 10.
pl mull ha Icix. xl' ci lu Iiiic'uflt n !a. 1119, br i xl at
one v"ar 1k admitted that Itn d nt' ni ,ttec_ 4 as 1' ptr
annuni unfl the plamtilf mcd depo%ited R% 1 .50.000/ . a the
dclend tnt No 10 was ut Ing on behalf of hi% wile defendant
No 6. he ue to put the %ignal 'ire a it ii k signed by delendant
'Jo 6 'wh I Wi il the pa 1ner Tk I uthu adnnttc.d that all
amount of Rs 1 51) ('00/ wa. t.ivcn at the hand ol delendant
No 10 in h' pre '. nc e ax"
1 detenclant 'Jr .10 bid the plaintiff
that Fneci D'-po%it ret eipts art' exhau%iecI and defendain. No. 10
a%k I dUn d tat \o o is C 'Pt xi p1 ax aper
Ijetencidni \c. 10 nad tiroinNiti 1,, f%'i( P:Tfled
r
P )',l ci t t 1w lan Ii i x at o delc hr
'\.. 16. 1 alt 'it ;.,:.,. it ftc.. ,fl .1, ..i' !ild' p:1: t
ii ila lift Di F ii.lt Li' 'j' its C' I I tiC ill It)
Or I 5
i
1
'n_ 1k \. • C
'
4 Jf U b tax
I; : .i Li•
1
•1 C' ' Ii'.-. i. .
N 1 ( f a 4. ' • iLl 11
I ,t i. Ihi •'' 1 ... I F!' . £ 1 1 •
I . I
.4nefl dci uP, )i iii a' cow 1' of flu finance ) dcfendant '%n 10 ir
11w' nwntii 1)1 March 1997. fliereahe r. cielendaiu \o.Sl ha'. ig
lilt, I ibcnii the' flhIrlil' ci tlw limit tif lb piuia I)t flit i'Iaiiiiill
JO Sinct ckftPd in' \os 1. 3 1 ) 8 2 kgil rcy C unat vc
oi Jilt iidcuit Nu.J and dtu'iiihun Nc,s. lu and H hau flied
%t-paraic wrillen '.Iatcinc Ills. takint ditic ient %laIlds. Trial LC)111l
on thc basis of thc said pieading han'cd iht. foiicwnu, 'ssuc
1. 11 htthc'i thc. picilnuji prorcs that the' (IçfrfldClTlt
Vu.') is the llrmaqer. ilçiinicb iii, Xv'. 10 being tiw
husbaitd qi dcicndant n.6 tilt' parities of the
dcfrndanl Vu. I I'inanre (nrporru Ion Is In ji11
manaqernc. it vi F Iiwna'?
llhethei the plainafi urthcr protes that he has
ckposlk'cI tic amoun 4 Rs .0.L'( 0 on 2, 01
1Y'47 a. rhc. dcI"id'z'ii \o, 1 f'lqnr'' ( or,x)rval.iiz U
r, at lilt' iqsl(irzct oi dc'Ienclant .\o it) one tilt'
dett.'ndavn--. "nrc 'ward lt kILL, 1u' :c're s' 'I' Jig' ..
rat yl _9 emil 1
jj r A I r I c
a caln'zI tile'! J'v lie ic,
I' I Pg T LI' 'j'.:z4 t ) : (1Sie,'.1 ,rfc,
SC 11 •J tks ' t
1.c)
1 li.'c C 0'
I V
i 11
l(
j
tick -1. 7€? ii .'l'
1
4f '.,f
' , I. ,
, ' .. , . '
: . -'
(K. , ts
12
r
7. What decree or Order?
11. To prove the case. plaintiff got himself examined as
PW-1 and got marked Exs.Pl to P71. On behalf of the
delèndants. DWs-1 to 5 were examined and Exs.D 1 to D26 were
got marked In their evidence.
12. DW- 1 Is defendant No.1. DW-2 Is defendant No.10.
DW-3 Is defendant No.9. DW-4 is deièndant No.2 and DW-5 is
the defendant No.4. The trial court relied mainly on the
evidence of defendant Ns.2, 3,4 and 5 to hold that, defendant -
Finance Corporation is a registered firm and defendant Nos. I to
8 are Its partners. In this regard, it also relied on Ex.P31 -
registration of partnership. Relying on the evidence of DWs-4
and 5 I.e., defendant Nos.2 and 4, it further held that both the
defendants have admitted that defendant No.9 was working as
the Manager of the Finance Corporation at relevant point of
time. It also relied on the evidence in the cross-examinatIon of
DW- 1 wherein DW- I has also admitted that, defendant No.9
was the Manager of the Finance Corporation. Further, trial
court based on the evidence of Dws-3. 4 and 5 also held that.
thkndant \c 10 is thc. 1w ,band Cd deft nd tnt No 6 irid was
lonkiniL aftet hit affair'. ol the firm on Jun brhalt. lo arn'e at
tin finding a ahc telici oil I' l t hol I that a rtpl5 notu
i'.snc'ct on behalf of ;
w
t fit in '. in tilt h.mdr1tun of Ic fri lani
Nu LU it ako relied on fA'h a paper publication in which it .
Is alleged th fi the dtft ndani No 10 is tunninc. defendant
Financial Corporation and other Financial rorporatlons and is
illegafi> c 41cc ting inont in mdci to dupe flic inestois A
ri'ards to the deposit 1)1 Tt. 1 50.1)00, by the J)laItitill with the
defendant F manc id (orpnt itinri. ii rr heel np the in ide'vv of
DIV :3. who ha'. 'haled that. hi had I%sui d E P2 and has also
admitted that in 'nd riccip is issued it Ii ii an c Cf
lchuitlani \' 1') .111(1 it'Ieitdai ii N J I) itiili dcci U'--. 1 .:i (K)( ;
Ii id hr si I ip i i,Ii ku I'c al w
..l'.n itliec' ,i flit c"::k.i. • t) i)--. 4 .tati 5. 'iit !dP.r .tjix.:ft.--d
E
1
t' ill iv ,. t '1 'i ug iii'' thi 'i ii tr
It 'I .'ii i I I'! . it I -it . Li .jc iiii I
'I 'It
t ;jf.••• •1 •.I '.II 'a : , -- t'lr ('i
11 J. il 4 .
.1 'it cli 1) M
ni. r!
.r' • : ... 1. :1. '1.-- t
.:_
' .. •
. • ' i. •q
ti • (.
t
of i)ri%ate coniplaint €l pet F P1 1 , ,ho that thc plaintiff for
it of tlit. ltpO%it uu hut hid ma(k a cc;mplahit am]
alit t the r oupl.int •i1 the jil untW ilat tlrlendauit Fin ti,er
rttIp;r.)tIOr1 tjIe'I i fInhI)Illt1L 1L.''fl' clelt"fl(j.ltfl 's l % f1t9
TX.Pbt tutu lii 1ig IL Li t'd tiM! the clelettdain >o.$i had
Jutd alln
4
rnlsappropnated the nionc ol thu rlInLrice (orpor;ttlon and in
vhlc'Ii the clepo'--ir "I the money by 'lie plaintlif 1% not rrfrrrecl.
Rekintr 'ii 'hr 41',' uiucni a lurther oL'%en ed that the
defendant -- Finance (orpniation had 'tot nlerred to the deposit
of the plaintlil in the ai1leed In'sapDIounahlon afleted to have
1. rum maclit by di lendani \ 9 This lortlfie% time "ase ni the
la till N%utlt these fin lit i tr c io held that th
Jr ilin ')t L' 1", ) t outed irid ;t
p4111 P1 I ot 11
r
el the he iii
lid •t'( it '.et I
((/ .i li liu tfli futtli I
C 1)11 li,c 1 til itt hi ?I (i • 'A c.q )P U
(1 t ' Ik 1 I 1'l' !
• r •• P • I--. ••
1'
amium .krordtiig1. It l1;1 (It'e reed tlu' %tilt ol hit plahulifi
1
u4a1n%I cldciudani \o% 1 to S. iio arc the' p.u-tnc'r% and
rjefrndant \os.9 am) 10 4% thc 3 Ut .11%') eq'iaH te%pon%lblc It
u' aualn4 this j'iiQmt t md chcn C thi dtknd i'it at' ii
appeal.
13 Sri.Vc C resh I-tPatil. Inn ned (ounsel appearing br thc
ippdllants submit ttd that defendant finn as engaged in
nioun kuding bush tess ft used to lend money ind also used
to collect the deposits 1 lowem ci to pros . that the plaintifi had
deposited R. 1. ;o ooo/- with the delencl tnt Finance
Corporation. there j% itothin on ire or') to %liow that the lirm
lhi% iscued 11w %Ue. F.' f
t i' n11 a T'Iwd l)cpo1t r.'reipt nor is
'sued h hit firm _: s in alkwcI wit Lilt .'liec,ct " han bret
igncd t(ilL C Ta 1ai)' I
lainithi 'kid' lC'jt itill ci
I- l• ti-i i ' t Ii i• '% 'it 1 ' j ci r
j I ii
a a .1,1. I' ,
'a
- 1' :' z '' -
t'La' 'kill
DLI '.' i ic 'it ',l nut j I at's tiI:l ,ilfi U. I;'' • I, , :;,r-- at'
.Itjt :-. -- ••
.
-': i!r:r, •11 • • .9 I'..
i.
I t
4 • ., C • r !'," 1
It
defendant No 10 Ibi fa ii a.clnuttc. 1 1w dc fendant No 9. who
114% ben) naniiti ii .r. 1)U J. %¾1n' cuirwnitaI1 1
tthiiit dial.
'iciendaiti \I) it) • 1)1111 trtl ilit ill'aie' md lit k%Ilt ci ft ceipt ii
abc inst inc c ol defendant \o 10 Diii 110 dcWUfllLflL% U'
Pit(1t1( td to SIItDStcifItidtt that alit %ud nionev fs cItpo"ited ith
the dciendani lirm Iii inni. 1)W 1. the Minaiiiiu Partner nJ
the finn has categorically deniec 1 01 my deposit made by the
plaintiff uth the him Thc tilal couit iia'img found that the
money 1% paid to delrudana 'ci. 10 ant not to the Lirm and also
hating found that. defendant No. 10 not being a paulner and
Ihert being nc inaiciial nidc ncing the leposat of amount with
iii finii an h l)t.ca .i e deknd€uut N; 2 dud 4 i.e. DWs 4 nd
5 haw adiuii'ed that. tic It ridamn \',.' it th. Maaiaazer g the
finn that b cli I tj)f p c abc Cc c •'l lb 1atnfi than U
ci x v. n II I inc
Wa' Iu • n' a Lw i';e.z 'Li •1 rider tdnn' N.' ' --r c '.1' Ic .re that
I7 i. %j 5 rt 1.IZ. ' i': • •-- !, : £ --
II '. Ict
'It tat • PJ"tI liii.
bitt r• •.u"i b. a'
•• •j.!• . . t;
'%j., ''. • ! £ 1
r.-. ,. •.
I
tJi'i 1 . • ..•••
t mplaint did 'mi alit to such €u dli' ccl dc.posit. Ihis apcc
th 111da1 IuI% hi en ni nnsl ititc'rpretecl h the trial enun It'
hoist that th. Ii; in ';-i-- 1101 ft lerred t ' I he piiniiitr- dCpO%11. it
thou' th' deposit in idc n 'hi p1 ii tuft Fl birth ut imtt I
that delendant \o 10 being liII%hand of Inc cieiendant No 6.
vlio ua the urt net .11 the defendant firm. has itcH authot i%td
the delendant No.10 to jr( on behalf I the firm 01 01 behalf of
dekndant 'k 6 ar I It his tot bccn cxainncd. hit C is no
material ne') ohlieIt%e in pin'.' that. lie 'tas autiioiiied hi. thi
firm to receive utne, or In art oii hrhnlj nI the (lint. l'he trial
uz has ixaic' niid on F 113 repis gi n It I rn
thi 1' is it Hindl 1. JUdQC olchn s hat a "nu e b ti
'it ic'ndeuit Nc' l) I- x 1' :n i1I n'i • nI ilith an a' tltiorizaluen n
rea at i. 1 ori: left n n \'o 1 w. it said r 1 in u
I 1 ) 1 IC ii
' t
c..a' 'itIi'. •tcJ' Lu,,, ii" i!cI( . •.Ii'--,g: :' itexu
, •. •i .1,.,
.;. . •L : .'! .i:' '. •'.,
I in t • r' ii N
i ur iji l"it £ € b'. (
Ii !i
11 1 c arited C ouIi%el tppcaiinj. lo' clc'Ienclaril No 10
%1I1)Iflhiltd elicit. t1vleiidiiit \o ft it Ins rhicn %tateindul
• aleturk :tII Itt'-- (It iii. '1 ih;u lit 'a lrtiflQ 'in he hail of
d.ienclan' \" " 'h" 'vi'-- the p Irtfir'? iii the •Ielrndatit lirn.
lit al'.'' li.is 'ItiLit'ti (if .Ui% itt t'ipt "I •tfliotiiit in huh Ironi the
plaIntIil. 1)efc'iulant Nc". 2 inch 4 have admiurd thai there i an
Internal (li%piite U% rnzarcl in the e"apltal shun' l)CIWCCJJ
deleiidwn I ..ind 5 to s and detendani Nos.2 and 4.
Detendant \o 4 illegtd 'hat he lia% ietnecl 1mm the lirni It 1'
tinder t he'.e tin titlist a fl(t %. I heir n iclenee shoe dcl tune been
considered. llmw cr th hi c tat ha. i ) ceded on the basis
ha lelendant No% 2 t a • c in hc 1 nt ha e ctLhflht t d
I t icic irlani \oQ as Ia c i I lxl'2 letter
t 'ztal 'C Cdt I
1 i 1 r
'urtlt ly s ii
r ' . Ui rjI. uton
J I 3, r't,git_ ( •fl• ' I it' I % )%%fl
'CC n onel t. --r Ii ci ft udLIlit
C,, ( iii I , . ,• '
'h. t
1 . '. . ,j
II,
mean tb-v deli ndant 'so 10 ntth'nL'ed to i( Ofl behalt of
the firm c j lie has K ftcl on belt ill 1 11w hint in turn, lit
ubnat '1 h f'U 1 4111 iii oin hi.. iSt th plaintiff
F' P2 r not i docunc ii n 'vim Ii thc pluntiff in c kim th it
hi ha matir a dcpo%n Li lion not beit the siwiature 01 the
clefendam 'so. 10 and In mm It '.lioiis the receipt alleged to hare
been is%ued by defendant No 9 and on1 on the bLL%Is of 1111%. the
trial court liouki not have held that defendant \c 10 ha
reverted thc imount 1k further subrrnttc I that nieiely
because his ii1e iias the partner of k4endant firm. niereh
because omt anielt.' wa rqtl,lishecl % pet T x.Pbn and not
replying liii. saul matte r wo' ild deihutc Iv not pro c the ('gj%t of
11w piaii't'h. Phuntlil b.n not pn)d.i. ed my oueiii .tnd valid
fl i(1C r ibM cii S ''i C )%i' teni 16
is 1 1 II
lrirtre urn thu s' ci that I Ii ta'c
,sf ..:
Iii' 'iii . ,.
r " I il, ' ' ' liJa 'r I'
t
r;.i v-i' tffi4i• I ' i, :' -a ir'r f , Plj :'n
'jliC'i( • t t ! i (V Itit •1 C •( •-- ''-
Sr
''' -- I I •
T. f i ;, c. 1. i' I I':
I
ill
iii the plaintitt havint 'jut brett •"--ijili'--he'I atai1t$ clelenclant
\u. 10 ma witit ci ii1apllii c iatioii of the ctidcnc has comi
tc he'itm Ii 1 ¼ ILC.il'L C lit IL 1(fc dii
No 10 ii o
13 Lcanit d to' inrl aijptai hut mi ilw pla.iniif I %ubinhilcd
ilmi, the fact ihait the deleiidant lIrm I rnazaged in finan' '. is
not In dlspuit. Ii Is also not in disputc that It lends inonc and
tereiu. hit deposits It is also not in hsputc that the plaintiff
had in idc thposii of R , 000/ cLrh(r and for non pa3,meIit lit.
had bled %Ilht br r flC n lbs cnclen,t of D% I clearly
slates that lie J% • Muna2eI 'ft the firm and lit lw.l j%uc(1
EN. P2. Dtfnidant %t, 9 .11'--I) .irlmh'-- t%ji tI,. '--aid dm011111 was'
t 1k tie 'kit wi i it' t'w u rat d d
t , s't. lIt
ul( ii ' e dr C)
lan ftc tad vie
f.t 'LI !t'r Iii 1' ;l ,,la-i th ' ilit
nq.j,_,j fl c ii. ; je. • . -- : .i I da,. c.i
t
4 p.. it .
r' '.' • a :'!11I h a d1.
1 .1 ! :'r'i 'C.
1% 1
it t
sj t • ,)g
itttjtl
I
'I
sulk icd Paralysis attw K hi called ck lendctnt '%o I ioi iss'tt of
ih€d deposit rcccipt Whin it wais not issued lit issued a legal
ii''! Itt' .111(1 •)J%i) flint a • nIflptauin' "hit 1' • e'jjrlerit iron)
Fv.J'S. 1J2t) ru'1 I' Ii) :it)tI I lflh11 'nmplatii! Itx.P!
Fur titer th (idt m t vi dcfenclant os 2 and 1 shows thai at
relevant point of time the were puincis md defendant No 9
u%ed •o Inuisac t the business of ilk firm. ('oupled with
aduil%%inh1 h defrntlant No.9 1)0th ii' the wfllWn '4tleifl(flt a&
well 'L in bi% nidem e it e%Iibli%h.'% that the monfl %1
collec led from lhc nlatntdT loarck thc fixed dc posn bc P9 wa'
isued bet c miter tnv Plink -1 iNc d di. posit icc eipts were fbi
%%Lit i br mvhitn hit' "iuplaii L1 'ia iNn I flli% tot ipled ltii
i)' 1. the 1anagmta I'ai!nt r Dli1)iiihti2 thai dc--Icz'dani \n 9 'va
thc t$ 1 1 xciI t ii lit blklir e t i c he
,l r ) 1
EU' p (i pnr i ii ''ii Ft a'u (.iiltit)i Jvi(a t_I I I
t 'u:n't ii 'It: 'u ' • ii :: • 't .
. j.% p.. 'i •!zi. I''
''Is t t!lal' ti I. ii': i'.. lii,, ) ; iSi
Ii I
I i ii V p
ii,
% , j' It • • '1'. :
cozuplaiiit lick! thai th. tk'aiI c%tahhsh tilt tlJfl%iWtiuii ('I
(Iej)Osit wftii the dt lenclani lirm mid disc) establishes that 11w
dt fir that lititi has tailicl Ic' tpay ilic said unnun Ihc saUl
evideipt' f% ''nrrnhnr;nn! in E\4.JNi1 and P62 (hi ci( C (.iiii
exti act ol the plainnil Mlwrein t he deposit madi with the
defendant firm ha, btcn mentioned Ibis doc'unw niars md
oral evidence ellnehlngh ctabh'4i lilt' ease ol the plaintiff and ii
has bcen nqiiil apprcc"ia.t.ed b's hit trial court lie lurther
submitted that, nen in nisc of ie' dpi executed b3 the
Manager. the finn is liahk in pa' the dninunt and submitted
ihat delendants ha'ic not mack. out an 'round intcmfeie
with thr judgnient arid dcc met of the immal c'numt.
lb Ir tin li4ii U lit unnmssi is n'ale i.' te K's icd
oui miii (ft cp)listit Pit r mdc on
jfl Ihi.., .sJ)JXi •tr'
ii '1 tIc It r " s ""c u r ctr tI
nd, ('1 1 4 .mE Ic ftc, €1
: •,','f S
tCica, • •1 •#
;r•i• •
it;'
I the c. s tilt iCE (L K'
i' j '• ( .' 1(4.
(ci What order?
17. Plaintiff for the purpose of proving his case, he got
himself examined as PW- 1 and produced Exs.P 1 to P71. Ex.P 1
Is a complaint given to the Police. Ex.P2 Is the original receipt
for having deposited Rs. 1,50,000/-. Ex.P3 Is a letter written to
the defendants. Ex.P4 Is an acknowledgement. Ex.P5 Is
another letter dated 5.5.1997. Ex.P6 Is a cover containing the
blank paper sent by the defendants. Ex.P7 to P14 are the
acknowledgements. Ex.P 15 Is the reply by the defendants.
Ex.P16 is another letter dated 12.5.1997 Issued by the plaintiff.
Ex.P17 Is a reply. Ex.P18 Is another letter wrItten by defendant
No.4. Exs.Pl9 to 21 unserved covers. Ex.P22 Is the letter
written by Finance Corporation to the plaintiff Ex.P23 Is a
letter by the plaintiff to defendant No.6, which returned
unserved. Exs.P24 to P26 are acknowledgements. Ex.P27 Is a
letter from defendant No.4. Ex.P28 is a complaint to the Police.
Ex.P29 is an endorsement. Ex.P30 Is F.I.R. Ex.P31 Is
registration of lmnn: Ex.P32 Is the copy of the judgment: ExJ'33
Is a notice by the Advocate; Ex.P34 Is acknowledgement:
Exs.P35 to 40 are postal receipts lbr having seni the notice to
ihr PartJiei% E\%.41 i.' 15 aic p('%taI LukIinukcIgtmerii&.
Ex% P46 1
Lfld 4 die i 'nt-i icluflied .Ii)%riCtl: F.%.f'4S and it)
rn cupk-'-- ni tht nJflh'I.lflfl Lfli t.- ti' 1) C P 01) . F_" P50
1% a c'1
t ler 'ccc" c_d horn tjp' Supc nnt( ndc'nt o! P'ilK r F P•)i q
1
an at knrn it dgc mc iii ior hating gin cii the c omplaint Lx I at is
an e ndoi sc mc in b thc Pohc'c F x Pal is Ui apphcition
submit Led to the Superintendent of Police Guiharg i ha P54 is
in 'tpplicatioii ubnilt ted (ci ti ( D 16: E pr c,
t'ndnrsenwnt in The- P.41cc. Ex I-'Sti i , 'e'rtiijccI topt 'd the
statc'nwni ut i'm of 11w partner'.: E"cPST is ihe %tatc-nwnt at the
Mai1;I(n of Finann' Corporation. Ex.P5R J th fllWV ItfldiflQ
iiCt'fltC L' P39 e 'fit re iiett.tl hut. q e . L'cs.P13(' i'' ('2 ar'-- 'he
'tatens at Ills. I 's Ph - arc Ljjq I .1' s'
P67 c him ' P ii
)')i it Ii',. d ."
C
lb I - ft ': I
r 'a'. :'- '.19;'.' --.
• • •( t
t i, P
• Ji-! 1111' '--
I''L1 JI
a • -- -. •••
1
•
1
got csamlned as P3 1. His spec lilt c c in tht plaint is that in
amount of Rs 0 000 as dtpositc d at thc instance of
tIeit'ndnii \o iii and dt ic-rdam \oiJ t 'Wi lilt '1 a fl C tij)i. In tilt
evident • aI'n lit adil)it% that, lit' p t1! the' mont" to dt'K'niiani
\o 10 aiici cicicudailt \o 9 issued tin ix ceipt 1k further admits
that he had sever ii transaetlon% iith dc lendant flint 1k also
admits tildE. lit had ai 11cr dcpoited Rs.5.000/ by isav of fixed
depo'dt. lilt' endeuct 'upp')flhzh the pkunhltf% • 1C Is hit'
i'v,denc'n ni defendant No, 'lto va i1i' Manager of the finn
He ilsn idniits that Plaintiff paid th. rnnne tn cietendjnt Nn 1(i
and iv issin d il-u, rca ipi ii plaintiff No hc rc eu ht i n th.
plamt or in tilt ' itic'iic t .'laiiiliIl %t,c' tIiw hr itati paid ilw
maim in the' namid'. ol :im •;I 'lit par'ntr-- nor 'vi Iii" hardc-- iii
ih d 1, N )citnc No 9 s cx i d a' DV 3.
u i p ctr I I
'%t1Lti ('LU) "t' iii -t I. nrl u-i Nc C) '" Oh'
li a ic'it I idli; \i ; b(t lit * 1'ObI 'fl 4 1. it' flc,lt'it
N' .1 ,i :t - t ','' -- cii!'' L ' 'i" , 4 1 -
it Nc ii t
f I .id
-' ., , - ,, ., ,., ,,
S
1 )P I I I ) I
JUIWPX 1)t I 9 )\ utpL. J( 0 0 irnpu>j>p pJ Hoqn
9 ON IUPPU)J) 1P91 oqs WUJWW U % )JJI4 J))O9
9 Og 91LU)JJ JO pUIIqsflq q' ot or rnPpwp iØnoqj
ULIJJ >94 JO J14'>q 00 4 )B 01 J ON IUUpU)J)p JO Aiuoqrnt
qi O9 0J J )UIA (u pnpo id ioo q Ijiluleki UUjJ
)41 JO 'J9JJE! >91 ud'ieuew 3 1. )IIOjtI 01 N 1UePU)J.P JI44 1U94
JOU 4,1 11 4C9) JJCJ %Pq t MU I d ON 4UPPU 9) i)A)MOJ4
9 OK 4UePUJ)P JO jjeqq UO U1JJI SP Lj 1P14} p)1}J1upL
9 L1U J 1 4 9U13 ' SOfsj 1UPpUJJp pUP 9 ON IUP9UJP
JO ULSflI4 iJJ SE M4 tq1 1pH 91 UI WO osJt stq
41 WJ9 >94 4 J)UIJPd >94 400 1 01 N 4 JPU)J) Icqi JUpJ4)
JIJI UJ IWO) Seq 9 (>ON 4UPPU J p Jo 11P9 )44 UI 10 SiU}JPd
MJ4 04 JUOOUIP U44 Pled PI4 '>14 IPT4J IIIIUIB{d flfl TO '>51"> '>91 IOU
laitncr aid A untant It i al's adnitted tic ci c A thc
plaintiff ii at nc 'uc Ii Ira d deposit ru clj t i s uec. t the fun
heiin xcii 1 '1 U u I dept I
moux t 1 '1 ii 1 t r ii, h )%S lilt I ii iknd it
made panient to left ndant 'do 10 and not to the him and his
evidence xl",o sho 'hit he i' m are that Ir'cud deposit receipts
an signed b the Managing Putncx lhc cidcn of defendant
N 9 lit Mar iei cxiv p )ts tc he 'etent I tlu plautifh
pawns the in e delcndmt Nc 10 and ac id a receipt
in i ni-un papci T iipncrl 1h P) nrc ciii ni IsP? i
u ipt çiu it ma i iii f defendant
o alti he a Il 411 hcw to
1 r r I ta r a
1 1
I.
'S
fliofleV to the detendatil \o. in. thi e Ideni'e dot's iic)t tlielo'e
that. diii dflioUtit Wa'. (ieJk'%itt d In t Lit finn. lilt' trial court
rrronrnhI%l rt by I nit ilic' c' ulein'c .1 L)U .3 dett--ndatit ojt.
Tfl'.4 defend ml \o ') and Lfl 3 lefendant \o 4 to hold thu
the aniouni is cirposited iiIt the deft ndant llrrn But neilbet
defendant Nc 2 no' cleft ndant Nc I ii in stalt d that theç had
knowledgc. of depo1t of the amount In thc pialnilfi Both the
dclendant% tatc that they are tic t mat c of 4fl5 suc'li leposlt.
Defendant No.2 has tawd 1 lute he bad noc even eeii the
aecnunt%. It clearly %hows that no ;irflotIill has been deposited
'ilth the lint. h the plaintiff.
19. \hcthei the am'ItIit paid t ) lelendazit \o 10 wound
uount to i t r t hit bra i t t in IL? In n tic
fti'd wi i di' iii' H
')lIt 1 titl C 1 10
in Nil I On C firm I riot hit
jil--tti'jtf 'i:d. ' 'I' 1
nc! . \., I. fli .,l'. .11.1 1
lb it.. it
tijfli •I . ' tight •.i ..tt•. t •% II" . 4 U. i•ta• nj:ff
i!i€i[ lit.., •( (l ! . •' sit. '!fl 3)1111 ttl tg ba_flii'
•1
• --. 1. --
• I
.:
'9
eap;k icy it doi" not amc"tnl jn depn%1I ol .unotim with tile 111W.
Dtlendani. \n 2 and 4 1.i .. L)W% 4 and 3 ii.ne otii 'hated that.
(iel( ndam No. :'' I1%e(l In ;u I 'Ui in hdf A cleirndint Nat n .iii'i
also was wr'un° the niltilite"-- ho prove 1111%. iknntill ins
produced La 1 'a to slu; tiiu tin. upi ictit 1 issued by tin.
firm contain tin handvnting ol deft ndant o 10 Even
asstiniliig that ix wis wrIting ot doing sonic iork on bchahl of
the finu. but hc h id no :iuthont ft IC' ewe the ..Im3unt )n
behall ol the defendant lirni flw paper public at inn E P67 I
produced to sho' that. deliiidain No.10 was c'olieetlng the
money on britall of the lirni mc! mistisrnt the sanw. Tint in
itself wIll 111)1 pt(•Vc tli.it defendant \.'. 11 Ibid it' niihici't to
--
coiled mont's Vt h ix, List ii It as thi i artnt. or 1 i
abst.i 1 \tNUti 4 1 )I
r r
flltlit)1 h€ti ( .' P1 I
ail)
t Ci't4t1 ,jt 1
a i
•ie_Lnr...fI-_:I sq.- I ' ' - I_! q :4 - '1' ,4' ii -1--'
j-' 1•
1
'i•i , j' 'fi %! :--,-: ':a,I':, . i'.''-_c r i
1
'ii •' '-',.. ' •f 1"-
I ,. • 51% • I • 5 1
L'1 ' n'
'
:- .h- '- 'hi
•!-- --.
' t - . .% --
30
hl%taIwr 01 'irit'niiant No. Ii) antI 111)1 P13 in thi said amount in
ilit' hands ol duienciant Nn 9 atii not 1t evi' ira flit regular fixed
dc push imnjeui'ait1 tlirzeatitr hi'fl ?akIiiQ tIu sjLL1tliit '! the
partners his C ist is that titer tht depo.ii lit left the piwe
md snfftitd parahsis attack ihis cxpianauon of thu plamtil.f
dot' not corroboiatt ith the other nidenu nor justify his
claim that the imount is deposited aith tht firm nor the 'iction
of tht deft ndant N',. 10 aniounts ft ii act tiC pciflii( r Ih'
1hidiiit of she tilal iniri thai E Pbb i' the coinpiuni jthen by
'
the defendant firm :is against cleicnc]arn No.9 regardIng
inisapproprlat lot z. nhi' 'Ii tint fUji 'nfl :ijJ I thr plaintiff'
anionul iiint •lnt '--
ncn nt :tii iniciru t t1ni hit piamtl1 ha'
dcposiitd lb i ) in 11i as' I t it deiend;uit 'o i ia
1 liniff I- I posit i lii
C I I Ii 1
inst ' C •) s priath
nrc '1 icIer pita I It it
a
1
'':
-.1-I.! I:. r- 4 iv.' -1.' 'i'
ill_i: '(Ii 'It ;!F (itliul I--- ' . i:t '' •._. d' ttiPi.iz . ' (I I.) i--
.' t
•• •.' '! gI.,
-- i.;:t I_. (4 .i.!r 0-i:),, I •''
- Is S
air; ei rnhlq'o1li rcivintz n tht tvidem t of delencian; Nos 2
md 4 has decreed the siüi in en thoith theIr evidence do not
IUV lilt ullrt.l tkjn%it j3otIj 11W 4 .iiiti ow . ha'e %t.ttrd
that. ilin ih; iii t itt' • am kn• ;w!.--dtt .1 ut I 'n--it. In c'ttr
opinion. then i-- tio ricternv to shnv that 11w anlotInt was
'iepc.lied or there i' no evidetu e whit h %hOw% (bin lilt' plaint if)
had paid moon to ildendaiit 3n.9 to be credited in the' .leeuUIlt
')i the lirni. II iheic I'-- on t 1de uc t to suppo; I the rat' ni the
plaintiff. de"iermtz (hr %tlIt .i :ttainI tile firm 1' bast'ci 011 no
it'gai and '.aiid evicinici i. •i iI"iille- i thc 'nat 'curt
a'-- --Lu 1
hat the tirm Is It'Lbi( is t
x's' c r n c dcnc and l habIt in be
(.t Mdt'
onkint tic y cidcnc
lit. r 1 1 1 C ill!'
1 itt'
i r'c"-i-i d o --
i(i.,.i' lii (
.f\(., "
.t .
a
b, ut duigi 'c t' the f illowin,. 01 dir
ORDER
un 11 P Its Itowi i ti1Ii I (21 'fbi p r ni md 'ft Ci( • ii OS •r ti 2CC'' r lit Die ul 1 tkl1 tint •iuclqe (Sr Dii I Gulbuga dated 16'' Au St M )OO6 ' set astdt wit' ii t the dc tend un os 1 (1) X JUDGE 'Si