In a summary suit, the Court needs to assess if the Defendant has a triable defense, and mere allegations of coercion may not be sufficient to raise a triable defense.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. The present suit has been filed under Order XXXVII CPC seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,95,85,000/- which includes the principal sum of Rs. 1,74,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. The case of the Plaintiff, in brief, is that the Plaintiff had invested a sum of Rs. 3,24,54,000/- in a company by the name M/s. Integrity Geosciences Pvt. Ltd. The said investment was made pursuant to an agreement dated 29th October, 2007 entered into between the Plaintiff on one hand, and Mrs. Shama Niaz Ahmed, Dr. Niaz Ahmed and Mr. Arindom Ganguly, on the other hand.

3. The agreement clearly acknowledged the payment of a sum of Rs. 3.24 crores by the Plaintiff. The relevant clause is set out herein below:-

“9. The Company will be able to achieve the above projections with the contribution of Rs 32.454 million from the Investor.”

4. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the funds which were invested by the Plaintiff, were misused by the said persons for their personal gains and benefits. The investor’s nominee was also not appointed as a Director. There was also gross mismanagement of the Company, which led to the Plaintiff taking a serious view of the matter. When the Plaintiff brought up the issues which were plaguing the Company with the Defendants, the Defendant suggested a scheme for revival of the Company. The parties thereafter entered further into an agreement dated 16th February 2009 by which a scheme for revival of M/s. Integrity Geosciences Pvt. Ltd. was agreed. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants failed to act as per the scheme of revival. The Plaintiff thereafter served legal notice dated 28th February 2009 demanding refund of the entire investment of Rs. 3.24 crores along with interest.

5. After receipt of the said legal notice dated 28th February 2009, the Defendants introduced an overseas investor for buying out the company, which also failed. A second notice was served on 22nd March 2010, in response to which the Defendants again sought time till 30th September 2010 to look for an investor. Unfortunately, the same also did not come through after which Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 12th April, 2010 was entered into. The said MOU was entered into between the Defendant, Dr. Niaz Ahmed and Mr. Arindom Ganguly with the Plaintiff. As per the said MOU, the Defendant and Mr. Arindom Ganguly handed over 13 cheques for a total sum of Rs. 3,24,54,000/-. The details of the said cheques are set out below:-     

6. After the said cheques were encashed and amounts were received by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was to release the promoters of their obligations under the agreement dated 29th October, 2007. Out of the above listed cheques, the payment under the first four cheques were made. Thus, a part payment of Rs. 1 crore was made leaving a balance of 2.24 crores.

7. However, the remaining cheques were dishonoured leading to a further notice being issued by the Plaintiff. This led to the execution of another MOU dated 31st March 2011, whereby the Defendant issued the following 10 cheques in the name of the Plaintiff company. The details of the said cheques are set out below:-