DEEPAK MELWANIKAR Vs. TRANS ASIAS BIOTECH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and cross objection arise from the judgment dated 30th August, 2016 passed by the XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5854/2013. The appeal is filed by the plaintiffs and the cross objection is by the defendants. The pleadings in a nutshell are as follows:

(2.) The 1st defendant is a partnership firm doing business in pharmaceuticals. The 2nd defendant is its managing partner. The 3rd and 4th defendants are other partners of the 1st defendant firm. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant came to know each other when they used to meet at the Ashram of Bhagawan Sri Sathya Baba at Puttaparti. The 2nd defendant wanted money for developing the business of the 1st defendant firm. He assured the plaintiffs of good returns if they invested their money in the 1st defendant firm. The plaintiffs, believing the words of 2nd defendant invested totally an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, in instalments in between 28.06.2009 and 12.11.2010 to the 1st defendant firm. The 2nd defendant failed to keep up the promise and failed to repay the amount to the plaintiffs. Thereafter the plaintiffs lodged a complaint at Old Airport Road Police Station and also at Puttaparti Police Station. After much persuasion and demand, the 2nd defendant agreed to return the plaintiffs' investment amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a. and in this regard there came into being a memorandum of understating MOU on 07.03.2013 between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. The 4th defendant was a witness to this MOU. In this MOU the defendant No.2 acknowledged his liability of Rs.25,90,000/- and assured of repaying this amount in two instalments of Rs. 13,75,000/- and 12,15,000/-. He also issued two post dated cheques to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiff No.1 presented the 1st cheque on 30.04.2013, it was not honoured because of want of sufficient funds in the 2nd defendant's bank account. The defendant No.2 sent an email on 30.04.2013 requesting the 1st plaintiff not to present the cheque as he could not arrange the funds, but by the time he received this email, the cheque had been dishonoured. Again on 23.05.2013 the plaintiff No.1 contacted defendant No.2 and demanded for repayment. At that time, the 2nd defendant instructed the plaintiffs to re-present the cheque, which was again dishonoured on re-presentation. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice and also instituted criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Parallely the plaintiffs also instituted a suit for recovering a amount of Rs.27,07,781/- which amount is inclusive of interest and other expenses. The plaintiffs also claimed interest of 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment along with damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(3.) Initially the plaintiffs filed the summary suit under Order 37 CPC. The defendants sought leave of the court to defend the suit. Since the trial court granted unconditional leave to the defendants, the plaintiffs filed a revision petition before this court. In the revision petition, this court also granted leave to defend the suit subject to depositing admitted liability of Rs.18,75,000/-.