PALLAVI DEALERS PVT. LTD. Vs. VINEET S. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1-original defendant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner No. 2-original defendant No. 2 is an ex-director of the petitioner No. 1 company and the respondent is individual plaintiff who instituted a suit for recovery of the unliquidated amount against the petitioners on the premise of having advanced personal loan of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 at the behest of the petitioner No. 2. It is stated in the petition that the respondent on the premise of having advanced a personal loan of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-, as stated above, to the petitioner No. 1 company at the behest of the petitioner No. 2, ultimately filed Summary Suit no. 631 of 2017 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against the petitioners under Order-37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,10,18,836/-, including interest thereon mainly on the ground that the petitioners have failed and neglected to repay the said amount of loan (subject matter of the four cheques issued in that regard), for which criminal complaint under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has also been filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Mumbai. The plaint of the summary suit is attached with certain documents and along with that, the respondent also filed Summons for Judgment at Exh. 12 and simultaneously upon service of summons, the petitioners have submitted leave to defend at Exh. 17 by way of affidavit. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 2 has raised defense that the petitioner No. 1 company, being a Private Limited Company, cannot accept personal loan from any one nor the said acceptance of alleged loan is supported by any resolution of the company. Secondly, it was also denied that at the behest of the petitioner No. 2, the respondent had advanced a personal loan to the petitioner No. 1. It has also been asserted in the leave to defend that the respondent-original plaintiff could not have lent any money without holding requisite money lending license or any permission from the Reserve Bank of India and further for the loan to the petitioner No. 1, the Directors cannot be held responsible and further except the petitioner No. 2, no other directors of the petitioner No. 1 company were joined in the proceedings and further it has been asserted that the alleged loan is not supported by any loan document and as such, in absence of any agreement or written contract, the suit itself is not maintainable. It has also been stated that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the transaction had taken place not within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad as the petitioner resided at Bombay, carries on business at Mumbai and the cheques were issued at Mumbai, drawn at Mumbai and therefore, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Ahmedabad and therefore, on account of these multifarious contentions, the leave to demand was submitted by the petitioners at Exh. 17 affidavit. It is the case of the petitioners that learned Trial Judge rejected the said summons for judgment at Exh. 12 and allowed the leave to defend at Exh. 17 and granted unconditional leave to the petitioners to defend the suit by common order dated 16.11.2018 and while considering such unconditional leave to defend, all the aspects, including the point of jurisdiction, was considered and without having any valid license, the respondent lent the money to the company. It appears that against the said order dated 16.11.2018, the respondent preferred Special Civil Application No. 19328 of 2018, in which learned Trial Judge was directed to reconsider the case afresh since some of the contentions have not been dealt with and therefore, the petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.6.2019.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioners that learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 31 reheard the parties and passed a further common order dated 16.7.2019 rejecting the summons for judgment at Exh. 12 and allowed the leave to defend at Exh. 17 on condition that the petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs. 2,28,95,000/- to defend the suit within a period of one month from the date of the order. It is this order of granting conditional leave, the present petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the same.