VIRTUS DORDRECHT B V Vs. VIKRAM BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs.2,14,66,030/- together with pendent lite and future interest @ 18% per annum; for declaration that the properties, as detailed in Annexure 7 "collectively" and Annexure 12, are the properties purchased from the funds of plaintiffs and defendants have no right, title or interest therein; a decree of permanent injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained from selling, transferring, mortgaging or alienating the said properties.

(2.) Case of the plaintiffs, as set out in the plaint, is that plaintiff no. 1 was a private limited company having its office at P. Buck Ref 101, 3315 BB Dordrecht, Netherlands. Shri Nico de Deugd was the sole shareholder/director/principal officer of plaintiff no.1, thus, was competent to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no.2 was a company having its office at Chavornay, Switzerland and Shri Thomas Bliesener was its director, thus, was competent to sign, verify and initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff no.2. Defendant no.1 was sole proprietor of M/s V3M Transworld. Defendant no. 3 was a partnership firm of which defendant no. 4 was the managing partner. Defendant no. 5 is wife of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 6 is wife of Shri Jai Prakash who was an employee of defendant nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) It is alleged that defendant no. 1 had approached plaintiff no.1 in the month of July/August, 1996 and represented that he was a merchant trader dealing in exports of agro commodities, that is, grains, oilseeds, oils etc. Defendant no.1 invited plaintiff no.1 to join hands with him in his export business of said commodities from India to other countries. Defendant no.1 suggested that they should start a joint business venture for the export purposes. Plaintiff no. 2 was known to plaintiff no. 1 and was also engaged in the business of agro commodities. Plaintiff no.1 requested the plaintiff no. 2 to join the joint venture business of trading of agro commodities, to which plaintiff no.2 readily agreed. It was agreed between the parties that plaintiffs would sign export contract with defendant no.1 and monies would be remitted by the plaintiffs in the bank account of the defendant no.1, in pursuance of said contract, as advance against the export of agrocommodities such as grains, oilseeds, oils etc. After the contract had been signed, defendant no. 1 suggested that apart from procuring the goods from the market it would be more profitable if the parties purchased suitable agricultural land and cultivate the same for growing such products and thereafter export the same, instead of procuring material from the market. Defendant no.1 suggested that amounts sent for the purpose of exports could be utilized for purchase of land and its cultivation. Defendant no.1 further suggested that in case the plantation project did not materialize he would export the material to plaintiffs, against the amounts remitted by them in his account.