Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 3123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
SUKRITA BAJAJ & ANR. - Plaintiffs
Versus
SUNDEEP @ SANDEEP SEHGAL - Defendant
CS(OS) 172 of 2017 & IA Nos. 8222 of 2017 [u/O 37 R-3(4) r/w Section 151 CPC], 4667 of 2017 (u/O 39 R-1 & 2 CPC)
Decided On : 13-04-2018
For the Plaintiff :Ms. Sonali Malhotra with Mr. Amit Sanduja, Advocates.
For the Defendant : Mr. S.K. Khukla, proxy counsel.
Independence of civil and criminal proceedings, liability under MOU, validity of defense, and entitlement to interest.
Headnote:
MOU - Recovery Suit - Sections 409/420/468/471/120B IPC, Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC, Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - The court discussed the MOU executed between the parties, the liability of the defendant, dishonored cheques, and the legal remedies available to the plaintiffs. The court highlighted the independence of civil and criminal proceedings and emphasized that the defendant's arrest did not absolve him of the liability to pay the outstanding dues.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,66,62,760 against the defendant, alleging wrongful transfer and misappropriation of shares, forgery, and non-payment of the promised amount as per the MOU.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the MOU, admitted his liability, and issued dishonored cheques, leading to the dismissal of his application for leave to defend and the decree of the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues involved the defendant's liability, the impact of the MOU, the validity of the defendant's defense, and the entitlement to interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal and civil proceedings are independent remedies, and the defendant's arrest did not absolve him of the liability to pay the outstanding dues. The defendant's defense was deemed frivolous and sham, leading to the dismissal of his application for leave to defend.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to defend, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and awarded interest to the plaintiffs.
S.P. GARG, J.
IA No.2193/18 [u/O 37 R-3(5) CPC], 2194/18 (u/S 151 CPC)
1. Sukrita Bajaj and Sumita S.Chadha (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) have filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.3,66,62,760/- against Sundeep @ Sandeep Sehgal (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) under Order XXXVII CPC.
2. The plaintiffs’ case is that their father late G.L. Tandon had three demat accounts with M/s Alankit Assignment Ltd. On the representation of the defendant to open demat account with M/s Apollo Sindhoori Capital Investments Ltd. with which he was a registered sub-broker, on 27.04.2005 G.L. Tandon opened three demat account therein. It is averred that while transferring the share portfolio from M/s Alankit Assignment Ltd. to M/s Apollo Sindhoori Capital Investments Ltd., the defendant wrongfully transferred 90% of the shares in his account and in the account of his wife Sapna Sehgal during the period between 2003 to 2008. The defendant did not give consideration and misappropriated the shares. It is further averred that the defendant forged letters dated 13.09.2008, 24.09.2008 and 06.10.2008 of M/s Apollo Sindhoori Capital Investments Ltd. and as also of National Security Depository Limited. A cheque No.415821 dated 03.02.2009 of Rs. 2.5 crores of Standard Chartered Bank was issued by the defendant to late Sh. G.L. Tandon. G.L. Tandon also wrote several letters dated 18.03.2009, 26.05.2009, 24.12.2009 and 16.04.2010 requesting the defendant to return his shares. Rs. 68,00,000/-were transferred in the name of G.L. Tandon though, the value of the shares was around Rs. 4 crores and 60 lacs. The defendant thus duped G.L. Tandon of his hard earned money. FIR 155/2012 was lodged against the defendant at the Police Station EOW for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409/420/468/471/120B IPC.
3. It is further pleaded that Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter ‘the MOU’) dated 03.04.2013 was executed between the defendant and Rajesh Kumar Ranjan and Ajay Bajaj, wherein admitting his liability, the defendant promised to pay a sum of Rs. 4 crores by way of issuance of cheques. Pursuant to the settlement, the defendant issued 12 post-dated cheques in the name of the plaintiffs out of which three cheques were honoured on presentation. However, when the other nine post-dated cheques were presented to the bankers, they were dishonoured. The defendant requested extension of time to make the payment of the outstanding amount but he failed to do so. The defendant, thus, is liable to pay Rs.3,66,62,760/- to the plaintiffs i.e. Rs.2,81,25,000/-towards principal and Rs.85,37,760/- towards interest till 31.03.2017.
4. The defendant on appearance filed application for leave to defend. It was averred that the plaintiffs were guilty of suppressing material facts; they did not mention the factum of cancellation of defendant’s bail on 19.09.2014. After the cancellation of the bail and arrest of the defendant in the criminal case, the MOU executed between the parties became null and void and had no effect. The plaintiffs were not party to the MOU. Moreover, it was specifically recorded in Clause 10 of the MOU that no party would file any civil or criminal case against the other in any court of law in future. The plaintiffs have not furnished any proof of their being daughters or legal heirs of the deceased G.L.Tandon. No letter was ever forged by the defendant and present suit has been filed to extort money from him.
5. The application is contested by the plaintiffs. It is urged that no triable issue has been raised by the defendant to grant leave to defend to the suit. The criminal proceedings are still pending against the defendant and no final decision has yet been taken therein. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to seek recovery of outstanding dues which were admitted in clear and unambiguous terms by the defendant. The filing of the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and under Order XXXVII CPC are two separat
