Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In the written statement, the Defendant raised a preliminary issue that the suit was based on forged and fabricated documents. Inter alia both the agreement dated 1st September 1995 and 26th March 1996 have been assailed by the Defendant as being forged and fabricated. It is claimed that some of the blank stamp papers signed by the Defendant and issued on 1st September 1995 were discovered from the residence-cum-office of the Plaintiff during search and seizure by the police at his residence on 12th March 1996. Importantly it is stated that at no point of time during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, particularly at the stage of grant of bail, either of these documents surfaced. Bail was granted to Mr. GS Saluja on 2nd April 1996 and anticipatory bail granted to Ms. Puneet Saluja on 3rd April 1996. The terms on which bail granted have been recorded in the respective orders by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ). Neither order made any mention of either the agreement dated 1st September 1995 or the settlement dated 26th March 1996. A statement was made to the police and an affidavit submitted to the court on the same terms by Ms. Puneet Saluja stating that she was not having any blank signed papers/documents/cheques in her possession which Mr. N.R. Rajgarhia might have given to him and that she had also given no objection if the sum of Rs.16 lakhs as reverted back in the account of M/s. Texcomash Exports directly or through the account of M/s. Texim Engineering as she had no claim to either of these firms on the above amount. She had also given such instructions to the Bank. In para no. 8 of the written statement the complete details of the criminal cases against Mr. GS Saluja and Ms. Puneet Saluja have been set out. It is stated that while Mr. GS Saluja was arrested, Ms. Puneet Saluja had absconded. Mr. GS Saluja twice applied for grant of bail but those applications were rejected. The anticipatory bail of Ms. Puneet Saluja was also initially rejected. Ultimately on 2nd April 1996 Mr. GS Saluja was granted bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge („ASJ‟) who granted the bail noted that sum of Rs.1.15 crores was transferred to the account of Ms. Puneet Saluja and from there a sum of Rs.60 lakhs was transferred in the account of Mr. GS Saluja. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff informed the learned ASJ that "settlement has since been arrived between the parties and money has been paid back in terms of the settlement." In those circumstances Mr. GS Saluja was admitted to bail. The conditions on which Ms. Puneet Saluja was also granted bail have been set out in para 8 of the written statement. It is submitted that the fact that neither of these orders mention either an agreement dated 1st September 1995 or settlement dated 26th March 1996. It appears that these documents have been created thereafter and forged and fabricated only to enable the Plaintiff to make a false claim by way of a suit.

10. Mr. D.S. Narula, learned counsel for the Plaintiff first submits that another suit CS (OS) No. 2826 of 1996 titled M/s. Sunny International v. M/s. Texcomash Export was filed against the present Defendant for payment of agency commission in relation to certain purchase of textile for exports. In the said suit IA No. 4870 of 1997 was filed by the present Defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground that the agency agreement dated 9th April 1993 on the basis of which the claim for commission was made by the Plaintiff there was a forged document. The said application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 19th September 2002. It is accordingly submitted that the present application should also be rejected since in any event the question whether the two documents on the basis of which the claim has been made by the Plaintiff is forged can be determined only at the trial. Likewise a reference is made to the decision in Sarabjit Singh Anand v. Manjit Singh Anand 2008 IV AD (Del) 89 to contend that the issue raised in the present application cannot be decided without the matter going to the trial. It is submitted that since the suit is already pending since 1997 no purpose would be served in entertaining the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at this stage.

"Settlement Settlement between Narendra Kumar Rajgarhia r/o D- 52, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110 024 and Santokh Singh Saluja r/o 123-124, Satya Niketan, New Delhi - 110 021 father of Gurbachan Singh Saluja and Puneet Saluja.

1. Sh. Santokh Singh Saluja will make his son and daughter issue cheque for Rs.1.15 crores in favour of Texcomash Export and if need be take the requisite cheque books to court for the said purpose and ensure statements in the court for release of money to Narendra Kumar Rajgarhia at the earliest.

3. Gurbachan Singh Saluja will in the meantime try and endeavour for refund of Rs.40 lakhs which according to Narendra Kumar Rajgarhia has been paid in excess as advance to Mahavir Plantation by Texcomash Export.

4. Narendra Kumar Rajgarhia will make all possible statements in the court to ensure Bail to both son and daughter of Santokh Singh Saluja and also ultimately take steps for finishing the case against them.