M.K. TRIVEDI Vs. RAMESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular first appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dtd. 31/8/2018 (impugned judgment) in Money Suit No. 17 of 2015 (the suit) passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-I, East Sikkim at Gangtok (the learned District Judge) deciding all the issues against the plaintiff and rejecting the relief sought for.

(2.) The plaint filed by the plaintiff essentially alleges that the defendant who was a Branch Manager of Religare Securities Private Limited (Religare), a trading company, persuaded the plaintiff to trade his shares after opening a demat account with Religare and transferring his equities and commodities lying with Reliance Securities and Sushil Finance to Religare. Certain details of monetary transactions was alleged but without any substantial proof thereof. It was the case of the plaintiff that thereafter, on 23/1/2015 the defendant finally agreed to return an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs including accrued interest by executing a memorandum of understanding (exhibit-6) and a money receipt (exhibit-5). The plaintiff thus sought for a decree of Rs.35.00 lakhs against the defendant with 10% interest thereon.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement admitting that he was employed by Religare as Branch Manager of the Gangtok Branch; that he worked in Religare from 7/12/2007 till 5/5/2011. He stated that Religare used to facilitate its clients inclined to invest their money by suggesting purchase of shares of certain companies. He denied that he had convinced the plaintiff to open a demat account with Religare or invest in shares as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant stated that the plaintiff had himself visited the Religare office to open the account through the sales team. He denied any knowledge of the deposit made by the plaintiff with Religare. He denied that he had influenced the plaintiff to transfer all his equities and commodities from Reliance Securities and Sushil Finance to open a single portfolio with Religare. He stated that the plaintiff had prior experience in trading in shares as he was doing so with Reliance Securities and Sushil Finance before he started trading with Religare. He denied that he had cheated the plaintiff. He stated that in the trading platform every monetary transaction is done through direct bank payment system and whenever a client purchases shares, they deliver account payable cheques in the name of the company and the payout is directly through RTGS in the bank account of the client. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff sold part of his shares valued at Rs.2,28,762.00 on 16/12/2009 and thereafter further shares valued at Rs.7,34,723.00 on 27/12/2009 on being asked by him. The defendant further denied that he had advised and purchased gold and silver from the money he had obtained from sale of the plaintiff's shares. He denied that he had assured the plaintiff that he would earn profits on his trading through Nirmal Bang Securities Limited (Nirmal) or guaranteed the principal invested would be refunded with all profits. The defendant stated that the plaintiff had approached the defendant to advice him in respect of investment in share market through Nirmal. The defendant stated that the memorandum of understanding had no sanctity and was not enforceable as the plaintiff himself did not desire to pursue the memorandum of understanding. The defendant had denied that he had embezzled any amount of the plaintiff. He stated that the plaintiff had suffered losses due to his own speculations and with the connivance of one S.B. Subba pressurized the defendant to sign on the money/share receipt as well as the memorandum of understanding. He denied that he had, on 23/1/2015, agreed to return Rs.35.00 lakhs along with the interest thereon within six months of the memorandum of understanding. He stated that the memorandum of understanding and the money receipt were executed by the defendant on immense pressure, force, coercion and undue influence. It was stated that the defendant was arrested by sadar police on 7/1/2015 in Sadar P.S. Case No.08/2015 under sec. 420/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the false complaint of Mr. S.B. Subba and he was released on bail on 9/1/2015. The defendant pleaded that stringent condition was imposed on him and the plaintiff taking advantage of it blackmailed him by firstly lodging the complaint and thereafter making him sign the memorandum of understanding under coercion. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.