CHANDRAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH Vs. VINODKUMAR CHUNILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two appeals the Judgment and order passed in Suit no. 715 of 1992 is challenged wherein the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit and held that both the appellants who were defendants in the suit are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff an amount of rs. 2,96,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 25% per annum from the date of the cheque till realisation of the decretal amount and rs. 25,000/- towards damages and costs of the suit. As the issues raised. in these two appeals are interlinked and arise from a common judgment, both these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for these appeals are that Mr. Vinodkumar C. Shah, the respondent No. 1 in both these appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff)carrying on business in the name of kirtivardhika Corporation had filed the above suit bearing No. 715 of 1992 in this court against Chandrakant Vs. Shah, the appellant in Appeal No. 721 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. 2') as well as Vijaya bank, Andheri (W) Branch, Mumbai who is the appellant in Appeal No. 58 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. 1')and the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. 3') for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,84,110/- with interest or damages at the rate of 21% per annum on Rs. 2,97,000/-from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation and Rs. 50,000/- as special damages. The defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant no. 2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are related as the wives of plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are sisters. By the impugned Judgment, the suit has been decreed by the learned Single judge only against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the suit against the defendant No. 3 has been dismissed.

(3.) TILL 1971 the plaintiff was serving as a Manager in the State Bank of Saurashtra. In the year 1971 the plaintiff took voluntary retirement from service. Thereafter, for some time, the plaintiff was working as Managing director of a private limited company at bhavanagar. Some time in the year 1980 the plaintiff left the said company at Bhavnagar and shifted and settled down at Bombay. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the period from 1980 to 1986 the plaintiff was acting as a consultant and adviser to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who were carrying on the business in the name of Mahalaxmi Dyes and Chemicals ('mdc' for short) and also in the name of chittal Chemicals. In addition to the above consultancy Services the plaintiff was also carrying on business in chemicals in the name of 'kirtivardhika Corporation'. The plaintiff had also business relations with the-defendant nos. 2 and 3.