NARENDER GUPTA Vs. RELIANCE POLYCRETE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs.46,82,000/-. It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No.1 - Reliance Polycrete Ltd. is an associate of defendant No.5 Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corpn. Ltd. in terms of an agreement dated 30.6.2005 between them for rendering services for export/domestic sale of Indian Wheat. Defendants 2 to 4 are directors of defendant No.1. It is alleged in the plaint that defendants 1 to 4 induced the plaintiff to part with a sum of Rs.2.40 crores for supply of wheat and pursuant thereto the aforesaid amount was deposited by the plaintiff with defendant No.5 in the account of defendant No.1. Defendant No.5 issued two orders; one for release of 2500 MT of wheat and the other for release of 1250 MT of wheat, to the plaintiff, in the account of defendant No.1. Vide letter dated 23.8.2005, defendant No.5 informed the plaintiff about refund of his money and sought an affidavit from him for release of an amount of Rs.20,218,000/- in favour of defendant No.1, to the effect that he shall not claim any financial compensation or wheat stock from defendant No.5. The plaintiff submitted the affidavit accordingly and a cheque of Rs.2,02,18,000/- was issued by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.1 which released that amount to the plaintiff leaving an outstanding balance of s.37,82,000/-. After due discussion amongst the defendants, defendant No.1 issued a cheque of Rs.46,82,000/- to the laintiff comprising principal amount of Rs.37,82,000/- and interest on that amount amounting to Rs.9 lakhs. When presented to the bank, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Another cheque of Rs.2 lakhs was thereafter issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff which also was dishonoured for want of funds. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this suit under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.46,82,000/-.

(2.) IA 3106/2010 has been filed by defendants 1 to 4 seeking leave to contest the suit. In their application for leave to contest, these defendants have claimed that there was no contract between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff for supply of any food item. It is further alleged that the cheque for Rs.46,82,000/- as also the cheque for Rs.2 lakhs were issued by defendant No.1 to defendant No.5 after filling the cheque amount, but without filling the name of the payee of the cheques. It is further alleged that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.5, prepared these cheques in his favour and on coming to note of it, defendant No.1 asked defendant No.5 to return those cheques to it. On the failure of defendant No.5 to return the cheques, defendant No.1 stopped the payments of the cheque. It is further alleged that the covering letter was also not issued by defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 and was prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.5, as defendant No.1 used to send blank letter heads with the signatures of defendant No.2 to defendant No.5 for business purposes. It is, however, admitted that the signatures of defendant No.2 on the covering letters appear to be genuine.

(3.) IA 516/2010 has been filed by defendant No.5 seeking leave to contest the suit. Vide IA 515/2010, defendant No.5 has sought condonation of delay in filing memo of appearance whereas condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal has been sought by defendant No.5 vide IA 517/2010. In its application for leave to contest, defendant No.5 has alleged that it had no role whatsoever in the contract/deal between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is further alleged that the associate agreement dated 30.5.2005 was executed between defendant No.1 and defendant No.5, but, since defendant No.1 could not arrange the required amount, the agreement was terminated on its request and the lease orders issued to it were cancelled. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.13.2 crores which defendant No.1 had deposited with defendant No.5 was duly refunded to it. It has been pointed out that release orders for wheat were issued by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.1 and not in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also alleged that defendant No.1 has not only acknowledged the receipt of payment, it also indemnified defendant No.5 vide indemnity bond vide 24.8.2005.