Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th July, 2019
ASHA CHAWLA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Garima Prashad, Mr. Sumit Chander & Mr. Gurdeep Chauhan, Advocates (M-9810024126)
LTD. AND ANR ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Hitesh Kumar & Mr. Sahil Sood, Advocates for R-1&2 (M-
9999091265)
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, who is a resident of Dublin, through her Power of Attorney holder. The Plaintiff is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and she seeks recovery of a sum of Rs.3,95,14,172/from M/s Amrapali Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and its Director – Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, who are arrayed as Defendants No.1 and 2.
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that in the year 2013, the Defendants approached her through one of their agents with an offer to provide stock broking services. It was represented to the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1 was one of the top stock broking companies in India, which would advise her on investments on a regular basis. In view of the representation made by the 2019:DHC:3393 Defendants, the Plaintiff invested a sum of Rs. 4 crores with the Defendants and she was assured that she would be able to withdraw her investments whenever she required. The Plaintiff accordingly started availing of the Defendants’ services from December, 2013. However, in 2017, the Plaintiff decided to encash her investment and to exit. She accordingly issued sale orders between 25th July, 2017 and 4th August, 2017 to sell all the shares that were in her name and for encashment of the same. Various contract notes were executed, the details of which are as under:
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ mentioned below:- │ │ Sl. Date Contract Amount │ │ No. Note │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. 25/07/2017 54293 Rs4747836 │ │ 2. 27/07/2017 55733 Rs3975000 │ │ 3. 28/07/2017 56437 Rs3731181 │ │ 4. 31/07/2017 57105 Rs4917974 │ │ 5. 01/08/2017 57787 Rs4511209 │ │ 6. 02/08/2017 58395 Rs5877869 │ │ 7. 03/08/2017 59051 Rs5812881 │ │ 8. 04/08/2017 59684 Rs5940222” │ │ 4. Thus, as per the above e-mail, the Defendants agreed to start the │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
9. It is submitted that Defendant No.2 was in jail in Vishakhapatnam, and therefore the leave to defend application is silent with respect to the August, 2017.
10. Defendant No.1 is a company. The company is a stock broking agency. The Plaintiff was a client of Defendant No.1. These facts are not denied. The investment of Rs.[4] crores is also not denied and the issuance of August, 2017 has not been denied in the leave to defend application, for whatever reasons. The issuance of the cheques also has not been denied by the Defendants. Under these circumstances, the leave to defend application in fact does not raise any triable defence or credible justification. In fact, the leave to defend application admits the case of the Plaintiff when it states that the Defendants never intended to delay any payment to the Plaintiff. In view of the stand in the leave to defend application and the complete silence on all the relevant facts, no triable defence has been set up by the Defendants. Following the judgment in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v Hubtown Ltd. (2017) 1 SCC 568 if no defence is set up, the suit is liable to be decreed. A decree for a sum of Rs. 3,95,14,172/- is passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from today.
11. The suit is disposed of. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. All pending I.As also stand disposed of.
12. The Plaintiff is also awarded costs of the amount of Court fee which has been deposited.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JULY 16, 2019