JASWINDER SINGH Vs. RADHE SHAM MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiffs Radhe Sham Malik and his wife Mrs. Prem Lata Malik, both residents of H.No.376, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.18,80,000.00 against defendants i.e. Jaswinder Singh, his wife Smt. Ranjit Kaur and M/s Citi Investment Centre, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through proprietor Jaswinder Singh on the averments that defendants No.1 and 2 had allured the plaintiffs to invest money in shares with promise of doubling the invested amount within six months. Taken in by such representation, plaintiffs started investing money in shares from 1/3/2001 onwards till 15/6/2007 by making payment to defendants through cheques. The total amount so paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants was Rs.10,64,545.00.

(2.) On being given notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement, contesting the suit, raising preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiffs had concealed true facts. Plaintiff no.1 himself had approached defendant No.1 for investment in mutual funds and at that time, plaintiff No.1 was informed about the procedure for investment in mutual funds. Defendant no.1 is only a service provider/financial adviser running M/s Citi Investment Centre and he is not a broker, therefore, he cannot deal in shares as alleged by the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, M/s Master Capital is the broker of the plaintiffs and after opening of the demat account, plaintiffs did not give any direction to the broker to purchase any shares in their names. Whatever amount was given by plaintiffs, same was invested in mutual funds. Plaintiff no.1 himself withdrew the invested amount from mutual funds without knowledge of defendant No.1. Defendant no.1 has already returned back a sum Rs.2,87,000.00 through cheques to plaintiff No.1 as plaintiff No.1 had requested the defendants to purchase shares, but defendant No.1 at that time was not dealing in shares. One cheque in the sum of Rs.3.00 lacs had been given to plaintiff No.1 in the year 2006 but he returned the same and received Rs.3.00 lacs from defendant No.1 in cash in presence of witnesses, in that way, the entire amount paid by plaintiff No.1 was returned to him. As alleged in the written statement, defendant No.1 was called to the police station and his signatures were obtained on some blank papers along with one cheque No.583498, which was converted into alleged compromise, whereas defendant No.1 had not entered into any such compromise because there was no need for the same. The plaintiffs being government servants were required to take permission from Government before purchasing shares. They have not annexed any income tax return to show that they had invested money in shares. Defendant No.1 never promised the plaintiffs to double the money in six months and return back the money, however, nothing was due towards the plaintiffs.

(3.) Plaintiffs filed replication, controverting the allegations in the written whereas reiterated the averments in the plaint.