M/S. SHIVALIK INFRAPROMOTERS PVT. LTD. v. NARENDRA SETHI

1. Present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.47,08,590/- along with pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum.

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of construction and infrastructure development. In the plaint, it is stated that while the plaintiff is principally focused in providing and developing world class infrastructure in Education Sector, defendant is a land aggregator.

3. It is also stated in the plaint that in 2008, plaintiff formulated a plan to construct and establish number of educational institutions at Dehradun offering courses in Nursing, Medical, Technical etc. For this purpose, plaintiff wanted 2013:DHC:2304 to acquire twelve acres of land around Dehradun.

4. In the plaint, it is further stated that in the beginning of 2008, defendant approached the plaintiff company with an offer for sale of contiguous land at Rani Pokhri, Jolly Grant, Rishhikesh Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand for the purpose of the aforesaid educational project. According to the plaintiff, defendant conveyed to it that plots of land available at Rani Pokhri were agricultural land and that defendant had a rapport with the farmers which would enable him to secure land at competitive rates.

5. To facilitate the defendant’s purchase of land at Dehradun, plaintiff on 13th May, 2008 advanced Rs.80 lacs.

6. According to the plaintiff, as defendant was unable to secure the land within a period of one week, the defendant refunded Rs.37 lacs.

7. However, as subsequently, defendant stated that he was in a position to arrange for the land, provided more money was given to him, the plaintiff on 30th May, 2008 paid to the defendant a further sum of Rs.47 lacs.

8. However, as no registry of the pieces of land to be consolidated was executed by the defendant, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 12th May, 2009, but the defendant gave no reply.

9. Upon the present suit being filed and summons being issued, Mr.Vivek Bhardwaj, learned counsel entered appearance for the defendant. But, as no written statement was filed, this Court vide order dated 03rd February, 2012 closed the defendant’s right to file the written statement. Further, as no issues were framed, plaintiff was permitted to lead its evidence by way of affidavit.

10. Plaintiff has led its evidence to show that Rs.80 lacs and Rs.47 lacs had been paid from the plaintiff’s account in Delhi bearing No.00032000039367 to defendant’s joint account bearing No.27120100004358.

11. A Bank official has duly proved certified copies of the plaintiff’s bank statement and plaintiff has exhibited the RTGS Fund Transfer Certificates.

12. Despite opportunity being given, no cross-examination was conducted by the defendant on 21st August, 2012 and 31st October, 2012.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and having perused the evidence as well as documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has proved the facts stated in the plaint and has also exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case. Since the plaintiff’s evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct.

14. This Court is also of the opinion that as money has been paid to the defendant and the same has not been fully refunded, plaintiff is entitled to a decree.

15. Consequently, present suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.47,08,590 in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization as well as costs. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. MANMOHAN, J MAY 06, 2013 js