Delhi District Court
Chetna Gupta vs Karvy Realty (India Ltd on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU GROVER BALIGA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-04),
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 599/21
CHETNA GUPTA VS. KARVY REALTY (INDIA) LTD.
In the matter of:
CHETNA GUPTA
W/o Mr. Rahul Gupta
R/o B-16, Kalindi Colony,
New Delhi-110065. ......Plaintiff
Versus
KARVY REALTY (INDIA) LTD.
Through Its Director
A Company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act
REGISTERED OFFICE AT :
46, Avenue 4, Street 1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034 (Telangana)
CIN No. U66010TG2003PLC041681
ALSO AT :
Karvy Millenium, Plot No. 31,
Nanakramguda, Financial District,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad
Telangana -500032
ALSO AT :
Corporate Office :
502-503, 5th Floor, Arunachal Building,
19, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001. ......Defendant
Date of institution : 23.11.2021
Date of reserving judgment : 01.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.12.2025
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 1 of 24
Digitally signed by
ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA
BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23
16:12:44 +05'30'
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of principal amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- alongwith interest, from the Defendant Company.
Pleadings
2. Briefly stated the Plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order XXXVII CPC interalia asserting therein that she had made a short term (three months) interest bearing deposit of Rs. 40,00,000/- with the Defendant Company vide an account payee cheque and the Defendant Company, in discharge of its liability, had issued in her favour, a cheque bearing no. 002894 dated 05.01.2020 for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- and that the said cheque on presentation was dishonoured. It has also been averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 22.01.2020 to the Defendant Company under the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and that when no amount was received in response to the said notice, a criminal complaint and the present suit have been preferred by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Company.
3. After the Defendant Company was served with the summons of the suit, it preferred an application seeking leave to defend and the said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2025.
4. After the passing of the aforementioned order, the Defendant Company has filed its written statement. In the said written statement, it has been interalia asserted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit and that the suit of the Plaintiff is also liable to be rejected for non- compliance of the provisions of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act. According to the assertions made in the written statement, the registered office CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 2 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:13:05 +05'30' of the Defendant Company is in Hyberabad and the contention is that since the cheque in dispute is also admittedly drawn at HDFC Bank, Lakdiwalapul, Hyderabad, Telangana, it is only the Commercial Courts in Hyderabad, Telangana which have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. It is also the assertion of the Defendant Company that the dispute raised by the Plaintiff cannot be termed as a commercial dispute. In the alternative, it has been contended that in case the dispute raised by the Plaintiff is to be taken as a commercial dispute, the plaint is liable to be rejected for the Plaintiff has not initiated pre-institution mediation in a proper and effective manner. On merits, it has been asserted that the Defendant Company does not owe any debt to the Plaintiff and it never invited any kind of deposits from the public, including the Plaintiff. According to the Defendant, the entire transaction alleged by the Plaintiff has been done without the knowledge or involvement of the Defendant Company. It is thus the stand of the Defendant that it is not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff.
Issues
5. Based on the aforementioned pleadings vide orders dated 08.04.205 and 30.04.2025, the following issues were framed by this Court;
i. Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute raised by the Plaintiff ? OPP.
ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount ? OPP.
iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP.
iiiA. For what purpose was the post dated account payee cheque bearing no. 002894 dated 05.01.2020 for a sum of Rs. 40 Lakhs issued by the Defendant, if not for clearing its liability in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to short term deposit made by the Plaintiff? OPD.
iv. Relief
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 3 of 24
Digitally signed by
ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA
BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23
16:13:24 +05'30'
It is relevant to mention that since this Court vide its orders dated 07.11.2024 and 08.04.2025 had already held that the dispute raised by the Plaintiff is a commercial dispute and that the plaint cannot be rejected for non- compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, no issues were framed regarding the objections taken by the Defendant in this respect.
Evidence
6. The Plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of her case - her husband and one Sh. Vikalp Garg, assertedly an Official from the office of the Defendant Company. The husband of the Plaintiff Sh. Rahul Gupta, PW-1 has filed his affidavit for the purposes of evidence. He has interalia deposed that he has been authorized vide a Special Power of Attorney dated 09.05.2025, signed and executed by the Plaintiff to depose on her behalf. The said SPA, as per the deposition of this witness, has been given as Ex. PW1/1. He has also affirmed on oath that he, being the husband of the Plaintiff, has the complete personal knowledge and information regarding the facts and circumstances of the present suit and that he himself was Incharge and in control of the day to day affairs of the Plaintiff relating to the operation of her savings bank account from where the investment was made. He has further deposed that one senior officer Sh. Vikalp Garg from the office of Defendant Company in Arunachal Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi had approached and met him in the month of September 2019 and explained him about the short term three months 12% p.a. interest bearing deposit being accepted by the Defendant Company. He has further deposed that on being satisfied, he had issued and handed over the cheque bearing no. 000162 dated 30.09.2019 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- in favour of Karvy Realty Ltd. towards the short term three months interest bearing deposit @ 12% p.a. He has further deposed that the cheque issued by him in CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 4 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:13:44 +05'30' favour of the Defendant Company was handed over to and received by its senior officer, Mr. Vikalp Garg at the residence address of the Plaintiff at B-16, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. He has further deposed that the said cheque was duly encashed and credited in favour of the Defendant Company in its bank account. The certified copy of the cheque and the bank account statement reflecting the credit of an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs in favour of the Defendant Company, as per the deposition of this witness have been given Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 respectively. According to his further deposition, the Defendant Company in lieu thereof had issued a cheque bearing no. 002894 dated 05.01.2020 for an amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs in favour of the Plaintiff and the said cheque was also handed over to him, at his residence in Kalindi Colony, in person by the Senior Officer, Sh. Vikalp Garg and he was informed that it may be encashed after expiry of three months from 30.09.2019. He has further deposed that the said cheque, however on presentation on 01.01.2020, was dishonoured and that therefore he, on behalf of his wife, had issued a legal notice to the Defendant Company. The certified copy of the said cheque, its return memo and the bank intimation letter, legal notice issued with postal / courier receipts have been given exhibits. Ex. PW-1/4, Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW1/6, Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/11 respectively. He has further deposed that thereafter he received two mails dated 14.02.2020 and 27.01.2021 from Sh. C. Parthasarthy, Group Chairman of Karvy Group of Companies wherein the said person categorically assured PW-1 that the payment of Rs. 40 Lakhs would be paid to the Plaintiff at the earliest. The said e-mails have been given exhibits Ex. PW1/11A (colly). The certificate tendered by this witness, in support of the electronic record by him, has been given Ex. PW1/12.
7. PW-2, Sh. Vikalp Garg has interalia deposed that he knows the Plaintiff and her husband since 2017-2018. According to his deposition, in the CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 5 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:14:02 +05'30' said years he was employed with Karvy Private Wealth Limited as its Vice President and that on behalf of the said company he was required to do investment banking. He has further specifically deposed that he had visited the residence of the Plaintiff at Kalindi Colony after getting a lead that they are interested investors and had made them invest in mutual funds, on various occasions. It is also his deposition that the investment banking team of Karvy Private Wealth Limited headed by Sh. Abhijeet Bhave had informed him that short term deposits of three months were being offered by the Defendant Company which would give 12% returns per annum to the investors and that he had conveyed this information to the Plaintiff and her husband. He has further deposed that on his advise that the Plaintiff and her husband must invest in the short term deposits being offered by the Defendant Company, they handed over a cheque of Rs. 40 Lakhs to him to make the investment in the said short term deposit. He has further specifically deposed that the cheque Ex. PW1/2 was handed over to him at the residence of the Plaintiff and that he later on had then handed over a post-dated cheque for Rs. 40 Lakhs to the Plaintiff and her husband, as per the practise being followed by the Defendant. He has also identified the said cheque as Ex. PW1/4. He has further deposed that Sh. Rahul Gupta, the husband of the Plaintiff, had telephonically informed him subsequently that the cheque has been dishonoured on presentation and he had, in turn given this information to his then CEO Sh. Abhijeet Bhave. It is also his deposition that Sh. Bhave then arranged a zoom call in which Sh. C. Parthasarthy, the Chairman of Group Companies of Karvy told him (i.e. PW2) and other employees of Karvy Group of companies that they should assure their investors that their investment will soon be returned.
8. On behalf of the Defendant, one of its Directors, Sh. Ravi Prasad Chabali has filed his affidavit for purposes of evidence. In the said affidavit he CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 6 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:14:18 +05'30' has affirmed on oath that the Defendant Company has never issued or offered any interest bearing short term deposit scheme and that it had no involvement whatsoever in the transaction alleged by the Plaintiff or her husband. He has further deposed that Sh. Vikalp Garg was never an employee of the Defendant Company and that he was never authorized to collect any money / deposit from any person on behalf of the Defendant Company. According to his deposition, the cheque bearing no. 002894 dated 05.01.2020 has not been signed by any Officer of the Defendant Company and has been signed by Mr. P.V. Ramakrishna and Mr. Durga Prasad, who were not officers of the Defendant Company and that the Defendant has no records disclosing the reason for signing or issuance of the said cheque. It is also his deposition that Sh. Parthasarthy was not Incharge of or responsible for the affairs of the Defendant Company till 21.06.2021 and it is only on this day that he was appointed as the Additional Director of the Defendant Company. The concerned records of the Defendant Company in this respect have been referred to by this witness and have been given Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2. It is also the deposition of this witness that the bank account of the Defendant Company was frozen / blocked by the Income Tax Department, vide its notice dated 14.02.2020 and the bank account of the Defendant continues to be frozen / blocked till date. The said notice as per the deposition of this witness has been given as Ex. DW1/3.
Contentions of Ld. Counsels
9. Sh. Aarav Kapoor and Sh. Mahender Pratap, Ld. Counsels for Plaintiff and Ms. Bhawna Das, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant have advanced final arguments and have also filed detailed written submissions. According to Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to show that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. They have pointed out that PW-1 has categorically deposed that the cheque issued by the CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 7 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER BALIGA GROVER Date: 2025.12.23 BALIGA 16:14:36 +05'30' Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant Company, was handed over to an Official from the office of the Defendant Company Sh. Vikalp Garg at the residence of the Plaintiff in Kalindi Colony and that this very Official had also handed over the cheque issued by the Defendant Company in favour of the Plaintiff at the residence of the Plaintiff only. They have further pointed out that the said Official of the Defendant Company has also stepped into the witness box and has been examined by the Plaintiff as PW-2 and that he in his deposition has also categorically supported the deposition of PW-1 in this respect. The submission therefore is that since Kalindi Colony falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, there is no force in the contention of the Defendant that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. On merits, it has been contended that since the issuance of the cheque in dispute has not been denied by the Defendant, they are liable to pay the cheque amount to the Plaintiff alongwith interest @ 12% per annum . In support of their contentions, Ld. Counsels have relied upon the following judgments :-
1) Satyapal Vs. Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2014) SCC Online Del 998).
2) Puneet Kumar Agarwal Vs. M/s Imaginations Agri Exports & Ors., (2013) SCC Online Del 701).
3) Yash Chhabra Vs. Maya Jain, (2015) SCC Online Del 10124).
4) Auto Movers Vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2021) SCC Online Del 4387).
5) ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A. P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163).
6) ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. K P Murgesan, SCC Online Del 13321).
7) Ajanta Raj Proteins Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Himanshu Foods Pvt. Ltd., (2018) SCC Online Del 6874).
8) I K Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2025) SCC Online SC 692).
10. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel Ms. Bhawna Das has interalia advanced the following main contentions :-
(i) This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit for no cause of action can be stated to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 8 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:14:53 +05'30' of this Court. She has pointed out that the present suit has been filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC, on the basis of a cheque issued by the Defendant company in favour of the Plaintiff and that therefore the present suit could have been only filed before the Court in Hyderabad, Telangana because it is in the said city that the registered office and the bank account of the Defendant is situated. It is her submission that the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court merely on the ground that her residence and bank account is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has then sought to contend that the cross examination of PW2 also makes it clear that he has deposed falsely that he had collected the cheque issued by the Plaintiff from her residence.
(ii) PW2 is not a reliable witness at all and from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, it is evident that Plaintiff/PW1 made several investments in other Karvy Group Companies and non-Karvy Companies through Mr. Vikalp Garg upto the year 2021. This long-standing relationship is now being misused to falsely portray that Mr. Vikalp Garg collected or handed over cheques pertaining to this transaction at the residence of the Plaintiff, to somehow manufacture some cause of action in Delhi.
(iii) The entire evidence brought on record reflects that the Defendant company does not owe any debt to the Plaintiff and the entire alleged transaction appears to have been conducted at the behest of M/s Karvy Stock Broking and M/s Karvy Pvt. Wealth Ltd., without any knowledge or involvement of the Defendant company. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Defendant Company floated any kind of deposit scheme. There is also no agreement or written instrument for the alleged deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs, proved on record by the Plaintiff. Further, PW2 in his cross-examination has also CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 9 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:15:23 +05'30' admitted that he had no written authority, on behalf of the Defendant Company, to get the investments done from the Plaintiff and her husband.
(iv) The dishonoured cheque Ex. PW1/4 is not signed by any of the officers of the Defendant Company. DW1 has categorically deposed that the said cheque is signed by Mr. P.V. Ramakrishna and Mr. Durga Prasad, who were not the officers of the Defendant Company and that the Defendant has no records disclosing the reason for signing or issuance of the said cheque.
(v) The bank account of the Defendant company stands frozen / blocked by the Income Tax Department and in such view the Defendant cannot be held liable in the present suit to pay any amount to the Plaintiff, on the basis of the dishonored cheque or to pay interest thereon.
(vi) The suit must be dismissed for the cheque asserted to have been issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant company is not even signed by the Plaintiff and PW1 in his cross examination has categorically admitted that the Plaintiff herself has no personal knowledge of the transactions between her and the Defendant company and the investment was made by PW1 on behalf of his wife. The submission is that in such facts PW1 should have been the Plaintiff in the present suit.
In support of all the aforementioned contentions, she has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 129.
2. Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Subramaniyam, judgment dt. 24.10.2007 in CS (OS) No. 1643/2005.
3. Mountain Mist Agro India (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Subramaniyam, (2008) ILR 2 Delhi 301.CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 10 of 24 Digitally signed by
ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:15:42 +05'30'
4. Arinitis Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Rockwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2008) ILR 2 Delhi 66.
5. Arinitis Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Rockwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2008) ILR 2 Delhi 325.
6. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K. S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. (2020) 15 SCC 585.
7. Kailash Devi Khanna & Ors. v. D. D. Global Capital Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Del 9954.
8. Ladymoon Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Investment Advisor Pvt. Ltd. MANU/WB/0547/2021.
9. IHHR Hospitality (Andhra) Pvt. Ltd. v. Seema Swami & Ors. 2022 / DHC / 004648.
10. Prime Hitech Textiles LLP v. Manish Kumar, 2022 SCC Online Cal 2326.
11. Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited AIR 2022 SC 3848.
12. B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corporation, (2022) 3 SCC 294.
Findings Issue No. i Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute raised by the Plaintiff ? OPP.
11. As narrated hereinabove, it is the submission of Ld. Counsel for Defendant that since the present suit has been filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC, on the basis of a dishonoured cheque, it is only the Courts within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated i.e. Hyderabad, Telangana, which will have territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. She has, in this respect, heavily relied upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrat Singh's case (supra) and Mountain Mist's case (supra).
12. I have gone through the aforementioned judicial dicta. It is firstly to be noted that in Dashrath Singh's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of territorial jurisdiction for filing a cheque dishonour complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and not a civil suit for recovery. Considering the statutory provisions of the said Section, it was held CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 11 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER BALIGA GROVER Date: 2025.12.23 BALIGA 16:15:57 +05'30' that it is only a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence is committed that would have the jurisdiction to try the offence. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as I.T. Commissioner v. Ogale Glassworks Ltd. (1954) 25 ITR 259. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a suit of recovery on the basis of cheques issued by the Government of India in favour of the assessee, Ogale Glassworks Ltd, . While dealing with the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that since the said company had expressly requested the Government of India, to remit the amounts of the bills by cheque, through post, the posting of the cheques in Delhi, in law amounted to payment in Delhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as follows :-
"There can be no doubt that as between the sender and the addressee it is the request of the addressee that the cheque be sent by post that makes the post-office the agent of the addressee."
13. Now, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mountain Mist's case (supra- the case relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant), took note of the aforementioned observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and distinguished it by stating that in the case before it, the Plaintiffs accepted the cheque issued by the Defendant at Ootacumund, without the agency of the Postal Department and that therefore it is only at Ootacumund which would have the territorial jurisdiction. In other words, both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court were of the opinion that the place where the cheque is handed over to a Plaintiff can also constitute a part of cause of action in the facts of a particular case. Infact keeping in view this judicial dicta, this Court in its order dated 17.02.2025, while granting the Defendant, the leave to defend the present suit, had categorically observed that since it is the specific averment of the Plaintiff that the cheque on the basis of which the suit CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 12 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:16:13 +05'30' under Order XXXVII CPC has been filed, was handed over to the Plaintiff by an Official of the Defendant at her residence in Kalindi Colony, it cannot be held that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. This Court had also observed that since it will be for the Plaintiff to prove the said assertion, the issue of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact and can be decided only after the parties lead evidence. Now, admittedly the Defendant has not challenged the said order dated 17.02.2025 of this Court. As such the only question that now requires to be determined is whether or not the Plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove that the cheque issued by the Defendant Company in her favour was handed over to her at her residence in Kalindi Colony. In this respect this Court is of the considered opinion that the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 are sufficient to hold that the Plaintiff has discharged the said onus.
14. As narrated hereinabove, PW-2 Sh. Vikalp Garg has categorically deposed that he had approached the Plaintiff and her husband at their residence at Kalindi Colony and had informed them of the short term deposits being offered by the Defendant Company and that it is he who advised them to make the investment therein. He has also categorically deposed that the Plaintiff and her husband then agreed to make the investment in the short term deposit and handed over the cheque Ex. PW1/2 in favour of the Defendant Company and in consideration thereof, he later on, had handed over, to the Plaintiff and her husband at their residence, the cheque Ex. PW1/4 issued by the Defendant Company in favour of the Plaintiff.
15. Ld. Counsel Ms. Bhawna Das has however sought to contend that PW-2 should not be believed at all, for his cross-examination reveals that he was not an employee of the Defendant Company and that he had no authority on behalf of the Defendant Company to get the investment done from the Plaintiff CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 13 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:16:28 +05'30' and her husband. It is her submission that since this witness had been advising the Plaintiff and her husband on investment matters, he has, on their behest, deposed falsely that he had handed over the cheque Ex. PW1/4 at their residence. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because PW-2 had been advising the Plaintiff and her husband on investment matters, it cannot be held that he is an interested witness and has deposed falsely. It is to be taken note of that the so called investments done by the Plaintiff and her husband through PW2 were in the Karvy Group Companies only, as per the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel. Now if PW2, being an employee of Karvy Stock Broking Limited, could get the Plaintiff and her husband invest in other Karvy Group Companies, there is no reason to hold that his deposition that he made them invest in the Defendant Company also, is incorrect. The e-mails Ex. PW1/11A written by Sh. C. Parthasarthy, Chairman, Karvy Group Companies reflect that the Defendant Company is a subsidiary company of Karvy Stock Broking Limited (of which PW2 was an employee). In such view, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the deposition of PW-2 that he, on asking of his boss, had advised the Plaintiff and her husband to also invest in the short term deposits being offered by the Defendant Company and that for this purpose he had been to the residence of the Plaintiff and her husband. It is also to be taken note of that there is no assertion whatsoever on behalf of the Defendant Company as to who, if not PW-2, had taken the cheque from the Plaintiff, Ex. PW1/2 from her residence and handed it to the Defendant Company for its encashment or as to who on behalf of the Defendant Company had handed over the cheque Ex. PW1/4 to the Plaintiff and where. Strangely, the Defendant Company despite admitting that it did encash the cheque issued by the Plaintiff, Ex. PW1/2 and did issue the cheque Ex. PW1/4, is absolutely silent on the issue in which manner did Ex. PW1/2 reach its office and to whom did it hand over Ex. PW1/4. There are no facts forthcoming from the Defendant in this respect.
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 14 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:17:03 +05'30'
In view of such facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the witnesses of the Plaintiff that the cheque Ex. PW1/2 was taken from the Plaintiff and the cheque Ex. PW1/4 was handed over to the Plaintiff at her residence in Kalindi Colony only.
16. There is also another perspective from which the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be examined. It is to be taken note of that though the present suit was filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC, after this Court granted the Defendant, leave to defend the present suit, it has been tried as an ordinary suit. It is a matter of record that in its application filed seeking leave to defend, the Defendant Company had categorically asserted that it is denying the execution of any agreement between itself and the Plaintiff regarding the short term interest bearing deposit assertedly made by the Plaintiff with the Defendant. It had also categorically contended therein that no material whatsoever has been placed on record by the Plaintiff to show that the sum of Rs. 40 Lakhs purportedly paid by her was in the nature of deposit or the said sum was repayable by the Defendant. Now, once this Court allowed the application seeking leave to defend the present suit, filed by the Defendant, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Plaintiff was then required to prove the aforementioned facts denied by the Defendant and prove that a cause of action had infact arisen in her favour. In ABC Laminart's case (supra- the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a cause of action refers to a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the Plaintiff, a right to relief against the Defendant. Now, in the present case, the bundle of facts, that the Plaintiff was required to prove was that on an offer made by the representative of the Defendant Company at her residence, she agreed to invest in a short term deposit with the Defendant Company on the assurance that she would earn a CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 15 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:17:23 +05'30' 12% interest on the same and infact made a payment of Rs. 40 Lakhs to the Defendant Company, and that the Defendant Company has not repaid her the invested amount with interest. Her residence being within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, one of the aforementioned facts namely the offer made at her residence and its acceptance thereof clearly gives the territorial jurisdiction to this Court to try the present suit. Further, to prove that the Plaintiff did infact invest Rs. 40 Lakhs with the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff was required to prove the issuance of the cheque issued by her i.e. Ex. PW1/2, which is drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, New Friends Colony. The said drawee bank admittedly falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the payment through the cheque made by the Plaintiff also gives the territorial jurisdiction to this Court to try the present suit. Further, in all the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Hon'ble Superior Courts have categorically held that where no place of payment is specified, the debtor must seek the creditor and therefore on the said principle also, this Court does have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
17. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that it does have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. This issue is therefore decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
Issues No. ii and iiiA ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount ? OPP.
iiiA. For what purpose was the post dated account payee cheque bearing no. 002894 dated 05.01.2020 for a sum of Rs. 40 Lakhs issued by the Defendant, if not for clearing its liability in favour of the Plaintiff with respect to short term deposit made by the Plaintiff? OPD.
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 16 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by
ANU GROVER
GROVER BALIGA
Date: 2025.12.23
BALIGA 16:17:43 +05'30'
18. Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiff have contended that the deposition of PW2 clearly proves the case of the Plaintiff. They have submitted that there is no reason of this court to disbelieve the testimony of PW2. It is their contention that if the said testimony is accepted, it stands proved that the Plaintiff had made a short term deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs with the Defendant, on the assurance that she would get interest there on @ 12% per annum. They have pointed out that even otherwise, the Defendant Company is not disputing that the cheque issued by the Plaintiff for Rs. 40 Lakhs in their favour was got encashed by them. They have further pointed out that the emails Ex. PW11/A (colly) also contain an acknowledgment of the liability of the Defendant towards the Plaintiff. The submission therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount. They have also submitted that the Defendant has miserably failed to prove the issue no. iiiA and therefore it should be now inferred by this court that the cheque, Ex. PW1/4 was issued by the Defendant for clearing its liability in favour of the Plaintiff, with respect to the short term deposit made by her.
19. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforementioned contentions of the Ld. Counsels of the Plaintiff are to be upheld. It has been rightly pointed out by them that there is not a shred of evidence led by the Defendant to show as to for which purpose had it issued the cheque Ex. PW1/4 in favour of the Plaintiff. It admits that an amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs was credited in its account on the encashment of the cheque Ex. PW1/2 issued by the Plaintiff in its favour. The issuance of Ex. PW1/4 i.e. the cheque issued by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff is also not being denied. All that has been deposed in this behalf is that the cheque Ex. PW1/4 is signed by Mr. P.V. Ramakrishna and Mr. Durga Prasad, who were not officers of the Defendant Company. The said deposition in no manner retracts from the fact that Ex. PW1/4 has been issued CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 17 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER BALIGA GROVER Date: 2025.12.23 BALIGA 16:18:20 +05'30' on behalf of the Defendant Company. It is to be taken note of that the said cheque has not been dishonoured on the ground that it has not been signed by an authorized signatory of the Defendant Company. It is also to be taken note of that DW1 himself has deposed that the Defendant has no records disclosing the reason for signing or issuance of the said cheque. It is unacceptable that a limited company like the Defendant, maintains no record of the cheques issued by it.
20. Despite the aforementioned, it is the contention of Ld. Counsel Ms. Bhawna Das that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of the suit amount. Her first contention is that since Sh. Rahul Gupta, the husband of the Plaintiff, admits in his cross-examination that the investment, the subject matter of the present suit was made by him in the name of the Plaintiff, it is he who should have filed the present suit in his own name and the suit filed by the Plaintiff should therefore be dismissed as not being maintainable. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said contention is overlooking the fact that the cheque in dispute Ex. PW1/4 has been issued by the Defendant Company in favour of the present Plaintiff, and not Sh. Rahul Gupta. She has then sought to point out that the Plaintiff has admittedly no knowledge of the transaction in dispute and has not even stepped into the witness box and that therefore this Court must dismiss the present suit. The said objection of Ld. Counsel Ms. Das also has no merit, for it is well settled law that a non-litigating spouse is a competent witness for the other spouse who litigates. In particular, in a case titled as Neelima Das Gupta (deceased through her LR's) v. Legal Heirs of Sh. Abdur Rouf, Civil Appeal No. 11074/2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 19.08.2025, after referring to Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act (para materia with Section 120 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) has held that the husband of a Plaintiff is a competent witness, to depose on her behalf CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 18 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER BALIGA GROVER Date: 2025.12.23 BALIGA 16:18:37 +05'30' and it makes not difference in case the lady Plaintiff herself does not enter into the witness box.
21. Ms. Das has then sought to contend that the Plaintiff has failed to bring any documentary evidence on record to prove that she had invested Rs. 40 Lakhs in any short term deposit offered by the Defendant Company. According to her, the mere oral deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be held sufficient to prove the said fact. She has pointed out that no agreement or written instrument for the alleged deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs, has been proved on record by the Plaintiff and that PW2 in his cross-examination has also admitted that he had no written authority, on behalf of the Defendant Company, to get the investments done from the Plaintiff and her husband.
22. As regards the aforementioned contentions, suffice to state that none of them addresses the most relevant issue namely that the Defendant Company did encash the cheque Ex. PW1/2 issued by the Plaintiff in its favour. Having enjoyed the credit of Rs. 40 Lakhs in its bank account vide the cheque issued by the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot be allowed to wash away its hands from the entire transaction by feigning ignorance. No doubt the Plaintiff has been unable to bring on record a written agreement to show that the deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs made by her with the Defendant Company was agreed to be returned to her alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, but the same itself is not fatal to her case. It will be relevant, at this stage, to take note of the emails sent by PW-1 to the Defendant Company and the replies that he received thereto. The same are Ex. PW1/11A (colly). Now, in the mails dated 14.02.2020 and 27.01.2021, Sh. C. Parthasarthy, the Group Chairman of Karvy Companies, has categorically admitted that the Defendant Company, a Subsidiary Company of Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. had accepted advance from the Plaintiff and that CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 19 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER BALIGA GROVER Date: 2025.12.23 BALIGA 16:18:55 +05'30' therefore it is liable to return the said advance. In other words, in the said mails Sh. C. Parthasarthy had acknowledged the debt owed by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff. The said acknowledgment is being disputed on the ground that Sh. C. Parthasarthy at the time of issuance of the said mails was not Incharge of the affairs of the Defendant Company. It is however to be noted that it is not being disputed that the Defendant Company is infact a Subsidiary Company of Karvy Stock Broking Limited, of which Sh. C. Parthasarthy was Incharge of or that he was the Chairperson of the Karvy Group of Companies. Even if it is to be held that the holding company or the Chairperson of Group of Companies has no authority to acknowledge the debt of its subsidiary, the fact remains that the cheque Ex. PW1/2 was encashed by the Defendant Company . Once the encashment of the cheque is admitted, it was the bounden duty of the Defendant Company to have returned the said amount to the Plaintiff. It is not the stand of the Defendant Company that it was never made aware that the cheque issued by the Plaintiff Ex. PW1/2 stands credited in its bank account. The mails written by PW-1 were addressed to the Defendant Company. In view of such facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Defendant Company was liable to refund the amount of Rs 40 lacs to the Plaintiff.
23. It is still however the contention of Ld. Counsel for Defendant that since the bank accounts of the Defendant Company stand blocked by the Income Tax Department, the Defendant cannot be held liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff, on the basis of the dishonoured cheque. In this respect, Ld. Counsel Ms. Bhawna Das has relied upon an order pronounced by a Ld. Magistrate in a complaint filed against the Defendant Company u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A copy of the said order of the Ld. MM placed on record and it has been pointed out by Ld. Counsel Ms. Das that the Ld. MM has been acquitted the Defendant Company in the said complaint after taking note CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 20 of 24 Digitally signed by ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:19:14 +05'30' of the fact that the bank account of the Defendant Company stand blocked by the Income Tax Department. This Court has gone through the said order and it is apparent that before the Ld. MM, the cheque in question was dishonoured on the ground 'account blocked' and it is in such facts that the Ld. MM held that no offence was committed by the Defendant Company. In the facts of the present case, the cheque Ex. PW1/4 was presented much before the accounts of the Defendant Company were frozen by the Income Tax Department and the cheque Ex. PW1/4 was dishonoured on account of 'funds insufficient'. In such view, the order of Ld. MM does not come to the aid of the Defendant Company. Even otherwise, the Ld. MM has only held that in view of the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a criminal offence cannot be stated to have been committed by the Defendant Company. The question of civil liability was not before the Ld. MM.
24. Further in the considered opinion of this court, the dishonored cheque alone is not the basis on which the entitlement of the plaintiff is to be decided. As discussed hereinabove, the Defendant is bound to return the amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs to the Plaintiff once it admits that the said amount was received by it from the Plaintiff. Even if it is held that the Plaintiff has been unable to prove conclusively, the existence of a short term deposit scheme, as per which she had deposited the amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs with the Defendant, the Defendant cannot be allowed to be unjustly enriched.
25. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the Plaintiff is held entitled to the recovery of Rs. 40 Lakhs from the Defendant and the aforementioned two issues are decided accordingly.
Issue No. iii
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 21 of 24
Digitally signed by
ANU GROVER ANU GROVER BALIGA
BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23
16:19:32 +05'30'
iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if so at what rate and for what period? OPP.
26. According to Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiff, since the Defendant has not denied the issuance of the cheque Ex.PW1/4 in favour of the Plaintiff, she must be awarded interest in terms of Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes it clear that in case, a cheque is dishonoured on presentation, subject to conditions mentioned therein the maker of the said cheque will be liable to pay interest to the Payee @ 18% per annum. The submission of the Ld. Counsel Ms. Das, is however, that since the evidence on record makes it clear that the said cheque has not been issued for discharge of any deposit/ investment made by the Plaintiff with the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to demand any interest on the cheque amount. She has further submitted that since the Defendant has led sufficient evidence to show the bank account of the Defendant Company stands frozen by the Income Tax Department, it should not be called upon to pay interest, to the Plaintiff @ 18% per annum. She has also submitted that the Plaintiff herself has demanded interest only @ 12% per annum. It is further her contention that since there was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the payment of any interest, the Plaintiff cannot be awarded interest even @ 12% per annum.
27. In the considered opinion of this court, the Defendant cannot be allowed to deny the payment of interest to the Plaintiff. The fact that the bank accounts of the Defendant Company stand frozen by the Income Tax Authority is not attributable to any fault of the Plaintiff. Further even if one takes into account that the Plaintiff has not been able to conclusively prove that there was any agreement between herself and the Defendant to return her Rs. 40 Lakhs CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 22 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by ANU GROVER GROVER BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 BALIGA 16:19:52 +05'30' alongwith 12% interest, the fact remains that the Defendant Company has enjoyed the benefit of the amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs deposited by the Plaintiff in its account. It is also to be taken note of that the Plaintiff did demand interest from the Defendant Company in the legal notice/emails issued by her. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS (OS) 209/2016 titled as Gopesh Mehta v. Swift Initia Pvt. Ltd. has held that even if there was no agreement between the parties with respect to the payment of interest on delayed payments, a Plaintiff is entitled to claim interest on the principles of equity, justice and good conscious and on the basis of the aforementioned principles, the Hon'ble Court awarded interest in favour of the Plaintiff before it, from the date of the legal notice issued to the Defendant. In view of the said judicial dicta and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court allows interest on the principal amount adjudged of Rs. 40 Lakhs @ 10% w.e.f. 22.01.2020 (date of issuance of legal notice by the Plaintiff) till 23.11.2021 (date of filing of the present suit).
28. As regards the pendente lite and future interest, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has submitted that in terms of Section 34 of CPC, since the liability in relation to the sum adjudged has arisen out of a commercial transaction, this Court must award interest at the rate of 10% per annum for the same is the rate on which moneys are lent and advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. Taking into consideration that many suits are pending in this Court wherein nationalized banks are claiming recovery of unpaid loan amounts along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel is accepted.
Relief
29. In view of the findings given hereinabove, the suit of the Plaintiff stands decreed for an amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs alongwith interest @ 10% pa.. w.e.f. 22.01.2020 till realization. Costs of the suit are also allowed.
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 23 of 24 ANU Digitally signed by
ANU GROVER
GROVER BALIGA
Date: 2025.12.23
BALIGA 16:20:06 +05'30'
The present case was reserved for orders by the undersigned while she was holding the Court of Ld. District Judge, (Commercial Court-04), South- East, Saket Courts, New Delhi and in terms of Order No. 51/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 04.12.2025 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the order in the present case has been pronounced today. File alongwith the order pronounced is being now sent to the Ld. Successor Court of Ld. District Judge, (Commercial Court-04), South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, for the preparation of Decree Sheet and for its consignment to Record Room.
ANU GROVER Digitally signed by ANU GROVER
BALIGA
BALIGA Date: 2025.12.23 16:20:38
+05'30'
(Anu Grover Baliga)
Judge In-charge, Mediation Centre,
Central, THC/23.12.2025
CS (Comm.) No. 599/21 Chetna Gupta Vs. Karvy Realty (India) Ltd. Page 24 of 24