(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.05.2006 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,25,000/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- was paid by the appellant/plaintiff for dealership of the respondent/defendant. Since the appellant/plaintiff could not fulfill Condition no. 6 of Annexure I of the Undertaking for grant of dealership and this condition was that appellant/plaintiff as per its Memorandum cannot be permitted to carry on fund based activities, therefore in terms of Clause 19 of the terms and conditions of appointment of the appellant/plaintiff as a dealer of the respondent/defendant, the respondent/defendant forfeited the amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- which was deposited by the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent/defendant.
(2.) The facts of the case are that admittedly the appellant/plaintiff applied for being appointed as a dealer of the respondent/defendant. As per Clause 6 of the format of undertaking, it was required that the object clause of the Memorandum of the appellant/plaintiff should not enable the appellant/plaintiff to carry on funds based activities. The appellant/plaintiff, however, could not comply with this Clause 6, and therefore in terms of Clause 19 of Annexure I to the application of dealership, which provided that the sum paid of Rs. 6,00,000/- with the application for grant of dealership is not refundable or dealership transferable, the respondent/defendant forfeited the amount of Rs. 6,25,000/- which was paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant. This clause 19 of the terms and conditions of appointment of the appellant/plaintiff as dealer with the respondent/defendant reads as under:-
(3.) The issue in the present case is covered in terms of the judgment against the respondent/defendant in this appeal passed by this Court in RFA No. 576/2005 decided on 30.10.2017 titled as M/s S.P.Virmani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s OTC Exchange of India.