PRADYOT KUMAR GHOSH Vs. PARAS DYES AND CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, injunction, cancellation and delivery of documents executed by plaintiff no. 1 viz. Will, special power of attorney, affidavit, agreement to sell and purchase, a mortgage deed, hire purchase agreement, receipt, indemnity bond, loan agreement. These documents were executed by the plaintiff no. 1 for transferring the interest of the plaintiffs in the properties described in these documents in favour of defendants. The plaintiffs in para 31 of the suit stated that the plaintiffs' liability towards defendant no. 1 was for a sum of Rs. 3,07,96,740. 55 and plaintiffs were ready and willing to settle the accounts of defendants within the period directed by the Court subject to return of the documents. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 rule 1and2 CPC (IA-1270/2006) seeking ex parte ad interim injunction that defendants, their servants, agents etc. be restrained from using the above documents and further transferring the properties in favour of any third party or creating any third party interest clouding the title of the plaintiffs. The application was taken up on 6th February, 2006 without notice to the defendants. The Counsel for the plaintiffs had contended that it was plaintiff no. 1, who was owner of plot no. F-2a Mohan cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road and plaintiff no. 2 was the proprietorship concern of wife of plaintiff no. 1. During the course of business transactions with defendants, wife of plaintiff no. 1 had taken a loan from defendants and the documents enumerated above were executed as a security in favour of Mr. Praveen Jain, partner of Paras Dyes and Chemicals. The documents did not confer any rights on the defendants. An amount of Rs. 3,07,96,740. 55 was admittedly payable by plaintiff no. 1 to the defendants. The Court was told that the plaintiffs were agreeable to pay to the defendants this amount and this amount would be paid by the plaintiffs within four weeks to the defendants however, defendants were still contemplating creating third party rights. Considering this averment that the plaintiffs were likely to pay the admitted amount within four weeks, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from creating any lien or encumbrances over the property on the basis of documents given in Schedule II. Thereafter, plaintiffs made an application under Section 151 CPC on 8th March, 2006 wherein plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs in terms and in compliance of the order dated 6th February, 2006 had served a copy of the plaint and applications on the defendants. The plaintiffs through their internal resources had generated an amount of Rs. 1 crore and craved leave of this Court to deposit the demand drafts in favour of defendant company with the Registry of this Court to be kept in a sealed cover. The details of deamand drafts of Rs. 1 crore were given. These demand drafts were drawn on ICICI Bank and Allahabad Bank. It was also stated that the plaintiffis would be arranging balance amount of Rs. 2,07,96,740. 55 within four to six weeks. A prayer was made to the Court to extend the time for depositing balance amount of Rs. 2,07,96,740. 55. The plaintiffs sought time to deposit this balance amount also within six weeks. The plaintiff apologized in the application for the inconvenience in not fulfilling its offer made to the Court of depositing rs. 2,07,96,740. 55. Along with this application, photocopies of demand drafts of rs. 1 crore all dated 4th March, 2006 were also filed.

(2.) THE defendants have moved this application under Section 151 CPC bringing it to the notice of the Court that the plaintiffs had in fact taken the Court for a ride and had obtained orders from the Court on misrepresentation. Along with the application the defendant has placed on record the certificate issued by the allahabad Bank that the demand drafts dated 4th March, 2006 issued by the Allahabad Bank favouring Paras dyes and Chemicals were got cancelled on 8th March, 2006 at the request of purchaser of demand drafts similarly, ICICI Bank also had confirmed that demand draft issued in favour of Paras Dyes and Chemicals dated 4th March, 2006 was got cancelled on 8th March, 2006 on the request from the drawer.

(3.) IT is apparent that the plaintiffs misrepresented to the Court while arguing interim injunction and made a false representation regarding not only its readiness and willingness to pay Rs. 3,07,96,740. 55 but made false averments in the application under Section 151 CPC that they were depositing demand drafts of rs. 1 crore with the Court to be kept in sealed cover and would be making payment of balance admitted amount within six weeks. In fact on the date when application for keeping the demand drafts in safe custody was made the demand drafts had already been got cancelled by the plaintiffs and the demand drafts were not even in existence. Plaintiffs placed on record, the photocopies of the cancelled demand drafts thus taking the Court for a ride. Plaintiffs also made a false representation to the Court at the very initial stage, I consider that such a plaintiffs who come to the Court with a design to befool the Court and to obtain interim injunction by misrepresentation and by playing fraud should not be entertained by the Court at all and the suit of such plaintiffs should be dismissed out rightly.