GOPESH MEHTA Vs. SWIFT INITIATIVE PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 5,32,50,000/- jointly and severally from defendant No.1 Rajinder Rai, defendant No.2 Madhurima Rai, defendant No.3 Bharat Sidheshwar Rai and defendant No.4 Swift Initiative Pvt. Ltd., pleading (i) that the defendants No.1 &2 being husband and wife and the defendant No.3 being their son and known to the plaintiff for long, in April, 2013, requested the plaintiff for a friendly loan of Rs. 5 crores and lured the plaintiff by representing that they would return the amount within a period of 12 to 18 months along with interest @ 24% per annum and would also give to the plaintiff 40% share in the defendant No.4 company and which share the plaintiff would continue to hold, even after re-payment of loan; (ii) that the plaintiff, instead of giving loan of Rs. 5 crores, gave a loan of Rs. 3.75 crores on the same terms with which he was lured; (iii) that the said amount of Rs. 3.75 crores was paid by two cheques for Rs. 25 lakhs each and by further payment of Rs. 3.25 crores in instalments duly acknowledged and accepted by the defendants; (iv) that all payments were taken in the name of the defendant No.4 company; (v) that the defendants however did not issue shares of the defendant No.4 company in favour of the plaintiff and also did not pay monthly interest as was promised; (vi) that the defendants also did not re-pay the loan; (vii) that besides the principal sum of Rs. 3.75 crores, the defendants, till the date of institution of the suit are also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,57,50,000/- towards interest @ 18% from 1st November, 2013 on the said amount of Rs. 3.75 crores; pendente lite and future interest @ 18% is also claimed.

(2.) The suit came up for admission before this Court on 31st May, 2016, when the defendants No.1 to 3 were not found to be necessary and proper parties to the suit and their names were struck off from the array of defendants and summons issued to the defendant No.4 only which is now the sole defendant. The plaintiff has filed amended memo of parties and allowed the said order to attain finality.

(3.) The sole defendant has filed a written statement denying the claim; insofar as claim for recovery of Rs. 50 lakhs received by cheques is concerned, the same is to be barred by time.