AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
I.A. 14591/2023 and I.A. 6898/2024
The present suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] has been filed by the Plaintiff, an NBFC1 registered with the Reserve Bank of India, against Defendant nos. 1 to 3 seeking a decree of a sum of ₹160,74,27,197/- as on 22.05.2023, along with interest @ 22% p.a. from date of filing of the present suit till the actual date of payment, on the basis of Consolidated Financial Assistance Agreement dated 29.09.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CFAA’ or ‘Agreement dated 29.09.2020’]. The CFAA has been executed between the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 [as Borrower-1], Defendant No. 2 [as Borrower-2] and Defendant No. 3 [as Guarantor].
I.A. 14591/2023 is an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking leave to defend the present summary suit. The application has been filed through its Managing Director i.e., Defendant No. 3.
I.A. 6898/2024 is an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC, filed by Defendant No. 3 seeking leave to defend the present summary suit.
CASE SET UP BY DEFENDANT NOS. 1 AND 2
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has set up Defendant Nos.1 and 2’s case as under: -
The Plaintiff’s latest audited balance sheet shows ‘nil’ liability against the said Defendants, yet the Plaintiff has instituted the present summary suit seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.160,74,27,197/-, which material fact has been suppressed from this Court.
The Plaintiff has not placed on record the original agreements and deeds, which are properly stamped and duly registered.
There exists an arbitration agreement2 in all the original, properly stamped and duly registered agreements and deeds executed between the parties herein, which are in the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff and relates to the present suit; however, the Plaintiff has not placed the said agreements on record. Infact, the Plaintiff has placed on record the photocopies of non-original, unstamped, unregistered agreements and deeds, which neither contain the arbitration clause nor bear the signature of Defendant No. 4.
The present suit is collusive and has been filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant No. 4. The same is evident from the facts as under:
Even though Defendant No. 4 is the Joint Managing Director of the Defendant companies; Defendant No. 4 has been deliberately excluded from the prayer clause3 in the plaint and a decree for recovery of monies has been sought only against Defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 only.
Defendant No. 4 had issued a cheque dated 31.03.2023 for Rs.156.88 crores and handed over it to the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff’s latest audited balance sheet shows ‘nil’ liability against the Defendant companies, and this cheque as well as the audited balance sheet have not been disclosed in the plaint.
Defendant No. 4 singly registered with the Registrar of Companies [‘RoC’] the charge creation document of 280 acres of prime urban land on 01.02.2023 in addition to the earlier 20 acres and having singly signed the mortgage deed on 23.01.2023 in favour of the Plaintiff, which facts are not disclosed in the plaint and explain why the Plaintiff’s audited balance sheet shows ‘nil’ liability. Defendant No. 2 alone signed the mortgage deed in favour of the Plaintiff. These material facts have been suppressed by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has been raided by the Enforcement Directorate [‘ED’] and the Income Tax Department on 21.05.2018 for offences of money laundering, tax evasion and FEMA violation, leading to seizure of assets worth ₹20.87 crores and US $32.17 lakhs.
The amount stated in the CFAA dated 29.09.2020 has never been disclosed in any of the Plaintiff’s income-tax returns, bank statements or audited balance sheets.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court shall allow the present application for leave to defend the present matter.
CASE SET UP BY DEFENDANT NO. 3
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, learned counsel for Defendant No. 3 has setup the Defendant No. 3’s case, as under: -
By virtue of the Gazette of India Notification S.O. 4176(E) dated 27.08.2018, Ratna Commercial Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the Plaintiff herein is a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act4 and therefore, the provisions of the said Act are applicable to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 05.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARAESI Act to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, wherein the Plaintiff had admitted that the Plaintiff is the secured creditor.
By virtue of Sections 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, and the proper forum for the Plaintiff is the Debts Recovery Tribunal [‘DRT’]. Therefore, the plaint filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
It is contended that the present suit is hopelessly time-barred. The first alleged loan was granted on 24.04.2008 with final maturity on 30.04.2011 and the last loan was granted on 06.07.2017 with final maturity on 05.07.2018. However, the present suit has been filed only on 22.05.2023. It is further contended that the account became NPA5 on or after 30.04.2011 and there has been no activity of the loan since 2008.
There is no provision for transferring or consolidating loans of different companies or individuals, and the alleged CFAA dated 29.09.2020 is non-existent, redundant and incapable of superseding any earlier agreements executed between the parties.
In the present suit the Plaintiff is seeking decree of ₹160,74,27,197/-against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3; however, the Plaintiff’s audited balance sheets dated 31.03.2019, 31.03.2020, 31.03.2021 and as well its latest audited balance sheet, shows ‘nil’ liability against the said Defendants.
There exists an arbitration agreement in the financial investment agreement dated 14.01.20096; however, the Plaintiff has relied upon the unstamped, unregistered agreements, which are devoid of both an arbitration clause as well as the signature of Defendant No. 4.
It is contended that the present suit is collusive. Defendant No. 4, Joint Managing Director of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 companies and despite his central role, has been deliberately excluded from the prayer. Infact Defendant No. 4 has issued a cheque dated 31.03.2023 for ₹156.88 crores to the Plaintiff even when the Plaintiff’s audited balance sheet recorded ‘nil’ liability against Defendant No. 4. The amount mentioned in the Agreement dated 29.09.2020 is absent from the Plaintiff’s ITR7, bank statements and audited accounts.
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
Non-Performing Asset
Filed by the Plaintiff as Document No. 10 along with the plaint.
Income tax return
The Plaintiff has falsely denied in its affidavit dated 11.09.2023 the raids conducted by the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department on 21.05.2018 for money-laundering, tax-evasion and FEMA violations, with seizure of assets worth ₹20.87 crores and US $32.17 lakhs.
Defendant No. 4, in secret meetings held with the Plaintiff and a political land mafia, conspired to sell valuable Urban Dabra factory land at gross undervalue, misclassified it as agricultural to evade duties, received only 10 per cent of the market value officially, and took the remaining 90 per cent in cash, which was shared between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.4. Post-dated cheques of over ₹2.5 crores from the sale proceeds in the year 2020 sale were never encashed. They further executed donation deeds of urban lands to associated trusts at zero cost, enabling illegal temple construction and encroachments, and jointly received heavy premiums for surrendering company assets.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court shall allow the present application for leave to defend to the Defendants in the present matter.
CASE SET UP BY DEFENDANT NO. 4
Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned senior counsel for Defendant No. 4 has made following submissions on behalf of the said Defendant: -
He referred to Defendant No. 4’s affidavit dated 06.09.2024 and stated that the audited balance sheet of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the year ending 31.03.2022 reflects the principal amount of Rs. 24.25/- crores as payable to the Plaintiff.
He stated that both Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 issued two [2] letters dated 26.07.2022 and 16.09.2022 to the Plaintiff acknowledging the principal debt amount of Rs. 27.75 crores and with interest a total debt of Rs. 148.40/- crores as on 30.09.2022.
He also relied upon the e-mail dated 05.01.2023 sent by Defendant No. 3 to the Plaintiff forwarding the documents for creation of charge on the 300 acres of land belonging to Defendant No. 1. He stated that a mortgage deed was executed on 23.01.2023 by Defendant No. 1 on its 280 acres of land in favour of the Plaintiff as an additional security.
He stated that a statutory form CHG-1 was filed with the ROC on 23.01.2023 and this form was uploaded with the digital signatures of Defendant No. 3. He relied upon the contents of this form, which records a charge on the land for a sum of Rs. 150 crores.
He relied upon these documents to show the participation of Defendant No. 3 in the creation of charge in favour of the Plaintiff.
He referred to paragraph no. ‘3’ of the affidavit dated 06.09.2024 to explain the reasons for the discrepancy between the amount of Rs. 24.25/-crores shown in the balance sheet and the potential liability in the certificate of charge [upto Rs. 150 crores].
He states that Defendant No. 4 continues to be a Director of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 companies and refers to the statutory documents recording this fact.
He states that Defendant No. 4 unequivocally admits the execution of the loan agreements relied upon by the Plaintiff vis-à-vis Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
He states that indeed a cheque of Rs. 156.88/- crores was issued on behalf of Defendant No. 1 against the CFAA dated 29.09.2020; however, since Defendant No. 3 did not sign the said cheque, it was not encashed. It is stated that the said cheque is in the custody of the Plaintiff.
CASE SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFF
In response, Mr. Sudhir K. Makkar, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff has set up the Plaintiff’s case as under: -
The present summary suit seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.160,74,27,197/- has been filed on basis of the Consolidated Financial Assistance Agreement dated 29.09.2020 [‘CFAA’ or ‘Agreement dated 29.09.2020’] between the Plaintiff, and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
Between the years 2008 and 2020, the Plaintiff had granted various loans to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 under a series of Financial Assistance Agreements supported by deeds of pledge, guarantees and post-dated cheques. The said agreements and documents have been filed along with plaint as Document Nos. 3 to 50.
The parties subsequently consolidated all these loan transactions into the CFAA dated 29.09.2020, under which Defendant No. 1 is Borrower-1, Defendant No. 2 is Borrower-2 and Defendant No. 3 is the Guarantor.
He states that the Agreement dated 29.09.2020 records that as on 31.03.2020, the total amount outstanding was ₹106/- crores, repayable with interest at 16% per annum, and provides that on default Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay default interest at 22% per annum.
The Agreement dated 29.09.2020 is duly signed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and incorporates references to all previous agreements executed between the said parties. Therefore, the said agreement is binding on the said Defendants.
Furthermore, to secure repayment, the Defendants executed several contemporaneous documents: a Deed of Guarantee dated 29.09.2020 executed by Defendant No. 38, a Deed of Pledge dated 29.09.2020 executed by Defendant No. 29 and post-dated cheques dated 30.09.2022 for ₹148.40 crores signed by Defendant No. 310.
Moreover, vide a Board Resolution dated 30.09.2022, Defendant No.1 had approved additional security of 280 acres of land, which was subsequently followed by an email dated 05.01.2023 sent by Defendant No. 3 confirming creation of such charge, execution of a Mortgage Deed dated 23.01.202311 and registration of charge with the RoC12. It is contended that a post-dated cheque dated 31.03.2023 for ₹156.88 crores was also issued in favour of the Plaintiff.
There are letters and notices on record, including the letter dated 16.09.202213 issued by Defendant Nos. 1, 3, and 4, wherein the said Defendants have admitted liability of ₹148.40/- crores. During March-April 2023, the Plaintiff had issued the loan-recall notice dated 09.03.2023, thereby calling upon the Defendants to pay an amount of ₹155.46/- crores. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 never responded to the said letter; however, Defendant No. 4 in its reply dated 12.03.2023 has admitted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable to pay a sum of ₹155.46/- crores to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff had also issued notice dated 05.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, thereby calling upon the said Defendants to pay an amount of ₹157.95/- crores. However, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 never responded to the said notice.
There is no denial by Defendant No. 3 of the execution of any of the aforesaid agreements, of receipt of the loans, or of issuance of the post-dated cheques. In fact, Defendant No. 4, who is the promoter, shareholder and
11 Filed as Document No. 66 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
13 Filed as Document No. 63 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint. director of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 companies, has filed affidavits dated 07.08.2023 and 06.09.2024, wherein Defendant No. 4 has admitted the receipt of loans and acknowledged the liability of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to repay the Plaintiff.
The defenses raised by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in successive applications are sham and without merit. There is no dispute that the loans remain unpaid from 2008 till date.
The Plaintiff’s claim is based on a written contract and negotiable instruments for a fixed liquidated sum is squarely maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC.
Findings and Analysis
This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a decree of a sum of Rs.160,74,27,197/- as on 22.05.2023, along with interest @ 22% p.a. from date of filing of present suit till the date of actual payment, on the basis of a Consolidated Financial Assistance Agreement dated 29.09.2020 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CFAA’ or ‘Agreement dated 29.09.2020’]. In support of its claim, the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff has set up the Plaintiff’s case as under: -
a. It is stated that the loans were granted to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 between the years 2008 to 2020 by way of Financial Assistance Agreements supported with Deeds of Pledge, Deeds of Guarantees and postdated cheques. The said documents have been placed on record along with the plaint as Document No. 3 to Document No. 50.
b. It is stated that the parties decided to consolidate all the loan transactions, which led to execution of CFAA dated 29.09.202014 wherein, the Plaintiff is the Lender, Defendant No. 1 is Borrower-1, Defendant No. 2 is Borrower-2 and Defendant No. 3 is the Guarantor. The relevant clauses of the said CFAA relied upon by the Plaintiff are as under: -
Reference of all previous agreements that were executed between the parties have been documented at Recital (A) to Recital (GG) of the Agreement;
Total outstanding amount as on 31.03.2020 is acknowledged as Rs.106,00,00,000/-, which is to be treated as the revised total loan amount, as mentioned at Recital (HH) of the Agreement;
Total loan amount of Rs.106,00,00,000/- was agreed to be repaid by the Defendants till 30.09.2022 subject to payment of interest at 16% p.a., as mentioned in Clause 2.1 of the Agreement;
Entire outstanding amount along with interest at 16% p.a. payable as on 30.09.2022 was quantified as Rs.1,48,40,00,000/-, as mentioned in Clause 4.1;
In event of failure to repay, default interest was agreed to be charged at 22% p.a. on total outstanding amount, as mentioned in Clause 5.1 of the Agreement;
To secure the repayment of the total outstanding amount, Defendant No. 1 agreed to execute Security Documents [such as Deed of Mortgage, Deed of Guarantee etc.], as mentioned in Clause 7.1 of the Agreement;
Defendant No. 3 [i.e., the Guarantor] agreed to be jointly, severally, unconditionally, coextensively, absolutely and irrevocably liable to pay to the Plaintiff/Lender, all payments, which were payable by the Borrowers to the Lender, as mentioned in Clause 7.8 of the Agreement;
c. Simultaneously with CFAA dated 29.09.2020, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 also executed following transaction documents in favour of the Plaintiff: -
Deed of Guarantee dated 29.09.202015 executed by Defendant No. 3.
Deed of Pledge dated 29.09.202016 executed by Defendant No. 2.
Two [2] post-dated cheques17, both dated 30.09.2022 for a sum of Rs.148,40,00,000/- signed by Defendant No. 3.
d. Subsequently, to secure the repayment of the total outstanding loan amount beyond 30.09.2022, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged 280 acres of land situated in Dabra, Gwalior [‘the said land’] in favour of the Plaintiff: -
Board Resolution dated 30.09.202218 of Defendant No. 1 approving additional security of mortgage of 280 acres of the said land.
Email dated 05.01.202319 addressed by Defendant No. 3 to the Plaintiff confirming the creation of charge on 280 acres of land;
Mortgage Deed dated 23.01.202320 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff, by way of which 280 acres of the said land was mortgaged in favour of the Plaintiff;
Clause K of Form No. CHG-121 filed by Defendant No. 1 with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs records that charge was created on the said land in favour of the Plaintiff pursuant to the Mortgage Deed dated 23.01.2023, which clearly acknowledged the liability of Rs.150 crores to be paid to the Plaintiff;
Letter dated 25.01.202322 issued by the Plaintiff extending the maturity date of payment under the CFAA from 30.09.2022 to 31.03.2023 subject to replacement of the postdated cheques for Rs.148.40 crores issued by Defendants under the CFAA.
Post dated cheque dated 31.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.1,56,88,00,000/- was issued by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff. The said cheque was signed by Defendant No. 4.
e. Various other documents, which demonstrates the admission of liability of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to repay the total outstanding amount to the Plaintiff are as under: -
Letter dated 16.09.202223, addressed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of Defendant No. 1 admitting the said Defendants’ liability to repay Rs.148.40 crores to the Plaintiff, as on 30.09.2022.
Loan Recall Notice dated 09.03.202324 issued by the Plaintiff was addressed to all the Defendants; however, no reply was received from Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, despite receipt.
Reply dated 12.03.202325 issued by Defendant No. 4 to the Loan Recall Notice dated 09.03.2023, wherein Defendant No.4 [as promoter, shareholder and director of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2] admitted receipt of the loans from the Plaintiff and admitted the liability of Defendant Nos. 1 to 2 [as borrowers] as well as the liability of Defendant No. 3 [as guarantor] to repay the said loans to the Plaintiff.
Notice dated 05.04.202326 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued by the Plaintiff was addressed to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3; however, no reply was received despite receipt.
Notice dated 14.04.202327 issued by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 3 invoking the Deed of Guarantee dated 29.09.2020 [executed by Defendant No. 3], which was not replied to, despite receipt.
Index of Charges28 of Defendant No. 1 as registered with ROC and as available on the website of MCA on 15.05.2023.
I.A. 14591/21023 has been filed by Defendant No. 3 on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for seeking leave to defend the present summary suit. I.A. 6898/2024 has been filed by Defendant No. 3 on its own behalf seeking leave to defend the present summary suit. In these applications, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have raised multiple objections which will be dealt with hereinafter.
In their defence, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not denied execution of the financial agreements executed between the parties between the years 2008 to 2020 including the Agreement dated 29.09.2020 as well as the signatures of Defendant No. 3 affixed on these agreements.
As a matter of fact, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have also not disputed the receipt of the loans granted by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under these agreements. There is no denial of the issuance of the post-dated cheques issued by said Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff from time to time to secure repayment of such loans. It is pertinent to note that all the post-dated cheques in support of Agreement dated 29.09.2020 were signed by Defendant No. 3. It is also not disputed that between the years 2008 to 2023 the said Defendants did not pay any money towards the outstanding loan amount payable to the Plaintiff.
Infact, Defendant No. 4, who is the promoter and the shareholder of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has filed an affidavit admitting receipt of such loans and the liability of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to repay the total outstanding amount of Rs. 148.40/- crores to the Plaintiff. In this regard, the contents of the affidavit dated 06.09.2024 filed by Defendant No. 4 have already been referred hereinabove, while recording the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for Defendant No. 4.
In the aforenoted facts, this Court will now examine the defences raised by Defendant No. 3 to the claim of the Plaintiff to assess whether such defences raise any triable issue.
A. Plaintiff has not approached the right forum
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have contended that since the Plaintiff has been notified as a financial institution under Section 2(m) of the SARFAESI Act, the plaint in the present matter ought to be rejected as the proper forum for the Plaintiff to claim the reliefs for recovery as sought herein is the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
In response, the Plaintiff has submitted that though the Plaintiff has been declared as a financial institution under Section 2(m) of the SARFAESI Act; however, it has not been declared as a financial institution under Section 2(h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [‘RDB Act’].
The Plaintiff contended that while the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the security interest under the SARFAESI Act, but it cannot initiate proceedings [specifically file an OA for recovery of loans/monies] under the RDB Act.
The Plaintiff further contended that the subject matter of present suit is covered under the definition of ‘commercial dispute’, therefore the suit has been correctly filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions of the rival parties.
As per Section 25 of RDB Act, the recovery proceedings have to be initiated under the RDB Act, by a notified institution. The Plaintiff has admittedly not been notified as a Financial Institution under Section 2(h) of the Act.
Learned counsels for Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 does not dispute that the Plaintiff has not been notified as a financial institution under Section 2(h) of the RDB Act and therefore, in these circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to maintain the present proceedings for recovery of the debt, as it cannot maintain recovery proceedings before the DRT.
This Court finds merit in the submissions of the Plaintiff that SARFAESI Act, would be applicable only when the Plaintiff would seek to enforce its security interest in the mortgage created in its favour qua the land owned by Defendant No. 1 and the said Act has no application for deciding the applicable forum for institution of recovery proceedings under the CFAA dated 29.09.2020.
This Court also finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiff that the present suit is covered under the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ stipulated in Section 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Thus, the arguments advanced by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the Plaintiff has not approached the appropriate Court is devoid of any merit.
B. Loans advanced to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not reflected in the Plaintiff’s Balance Sheets
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have next relied upon the submissions of the Plaintiff recorded in its affidavit dated 06.09.2024 with reference to the Note 8(c) of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2023. It is stated that the said affidavit admits that no loans were granted to Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as per Note 8(c) of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2023.
This Court has perused the affidavit dated 06.09.2024. The relevant paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of the said affidavit read as under:
“3.I state that the loans advanced to Defendant nos. 1 to 3 are regularly reflected in the balance sheets of the Plaintiff. That as per the audited balance sheet of the Plaintiff as on 31.03.2019, the loans granted to Defendant nos. 1 to 3 were shown as “Doubtful Assets” as per the procedure prescribed in Reserve Bank of India's Master Circular – “Systemically Important Non-Banking Financial (Non-Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2015” dated 03.06.2015. A perusal of the balance sheet of the Plaintiff as on 31.03.2019 would demonstrate that the loans are reflected in Note 11 under the heading “Notes on Accounts”-
a. The Gwalior Agriculture Company Limited INR 18,25,00,000/-
b. The Gwalior Sugar Limited - INR.6,00,00,000/-
c. Vikram Srivastava - INR.3,50,00,000/-The total loan amount of INR.27,75,00,000/- is also included under the head of “Doubtful Debts” of INR.30,59,31,639 shown under Note 4 pertaining to “Long Term Provisions”. A true and correct copy of the audited balance sheet of the Plaintiff for FY 2018-2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Document-1.
4.That as per the balance sheet of the Plaintiff as on 31.03.2023, the loans granted to Defendant nos. 1 to 3 were reflected as “Doubtful Assets” under Note 8. The break-up of the loans referred to in Note 8 includes the following loans-
a. The Gwalior Agriculture Company Limited INR. 18,25,00,000/-
b. The Gwalior Sugar Limited-INR.7,31,46,800/-
c. Vikram Srivastava -INR.3,50,00,000/-A true and correct copy of the audited balance sheet of the Plaintiff for FY 2022-2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Document-2. A true and correct copy of the calculation of loans referred to in Note 8 of the balance sheet is annexed herewith and marked as Document - 3. I state that the calculation reflected in Document - 3 above is prepared on the basis of books of accounts maintained by the Plaintiff in the regular course of business. …. ….
6.… Therefore, the interest accrued on the loans advanced to Defendant nos. 1 to 3 is not reflected in the balance sheets of the Plaintiff as the same is required to be reflected only once realised. I state that although the interest accrued is not reflected in the balance sheet, the principal amount advanced by way of various loans is duly reflected in all balance sheets of the Plaintiff and the interest is payable in terms of the Consolidated Financial Assistance Agreement dated 29.09.2020. I further state that the liability for payment of interest is duly acknowledged by Defendant nos. 1 to 3 in multiple documents which have been filed along with the suit.”
[Emphasis supplied]
A perusal of the Plaintiff’s affidavit dated 06.09.2025 shows that as per the Plaintiff the amount of Rs. 29,06,46,800/- was specifically shown qua Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as ‘doubtful asset’ under Note 8 of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2023. The said affidavit explains that this principal amount, which was advanced by way of various loans by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 is duly reflected in all the balance sheets of the Plaintiff.
It is stated that, however, the interest accrued on the aforesaid amounts has not been reflected in the balance sheet, as the same is required to be reflected only once realised and it relies upon an RBI Master Circular to explain not reflecting the interest component.
In the aforesaid facts, the submission of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that no loan amount is reflected in the balance sheets of the Plaintiff is incorrect.
C. Non-registration of the loan agreements executed between Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the Plaintiff with the Central Registry as per SARFAESI Act
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have next contended that the Plaintiff has not registered the loan agreements executed between them and the Plaintiff, with the Central Registry as per Section 20 of the SARFAESI Act. It is contended that the Plaintiff could not register any transaction of creation of security interest with the Central Registry till date with regard to the Defendants, because all are bogus rotation of false entries for money laundering in connivance with Defendant No. 4. This plea has been raised by way of the written submissions dated 12.11.2024.
Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act states that no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise the rights of enforcement of securities under the Chapter 3 of the Act unless the security interest credited in favour of the secured creditor by the borrower has been registered with the Central Registry. Thus, the consequences of non-registration with the Central Registry are stipulated in Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act.
However, the present proceedings have not been filed for enforcement of security and therefore, the said non-registration would not have any effect on the maintainability of these proceedings.
D. Non- issuance of NPA notice by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3
It is further stated that no NPA notice was sent to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 companies by the Plaintiff. The Defendant after making the submission has however, failed to explain as to how non-issuance of the NPA notice would make the present proceedings filed for recovery of the amounts due as non-maintainable. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the said submissions.
E. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit in collusion with Defendant No. 4
It is contended by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that Defendant No. 4 resigned as a Director of Defendant No. 2 on 18.10.2020. It is stated that due to the proceedings pending before the NCLT29 Ahmedabad, there was no board of Directors between 17.12.2004 till 09.06.2017 for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
It is stated that the ROC, Gwalior has also initiated prosecution against Defendant company for statutory non-compliance including statement of accounts in the year 2016-17.
It is stated that in this background, the entries in the books of accounts of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 acknowledging the receipt of loans from the Plaintiff are not genuine but have been created by Defendant No. 4 in collusion with the Plaintiff.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 also relies upon the factum of issuance of a cheque of Rs.156.88 crores, dated 31.03.2023 signed by Defendant No.4 on behalf of Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff even though there was no balance in the bank account as proof of collusion. It is alleged by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the present proceedings have been filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant No.4.
In response, the Plaintiff states that it had agreed to extend the maturity date under the CFAA dated 29.09.2020 to 31.03.2023 subject to Defendants issuing a fresh post-dated cheque for the maturity. Even though cheque dated 31.03.2023 for Rs.156.88 crores was issued by Defendant No. 1; the same was not signed by Defendant No. 3. Hence, the said cheque was never presented for payment.
This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the Plaintiff. However, none of the aforesaid submissions has any effect on the consequence of Defendant No. 3’s admitted signatures on the loan agreements as well as on CFAA dated 29.09.2020 relied upon by the Plaintiff, which is the basis of this suit.
Defendant No. 4 has filed an affidavit dated 06.09.2024 and has placed on record the audited balance sheet of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the year ending 31.03.2022, which acknowledges receipt of the advances of Rs.24.25 crores by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the Plaintiff. The relevant portion of Defendant No. 4’s affidavit dated 06.09.2024 read as under: -
“2.That in compliance with this Hon'ble Court's order dated 23.08.2024, I am submitting herewith the following documents:
a. The last audited balance sheet of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as on 31st March 2022, duly filed with the Registrar of Companies, which reflects the principal amount of the debt in question owed to the Plaintiff. A copy of the last audited balance sheet of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as on 31st March 2022 duly certified by a practicing Company Secretary CS Pramod Jian, who has issued the certificate after examining the relevant balance sheet and challans filed with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) Madhya Pradesh through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal are collectively annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A (Colly). The balance sheet records under Note 4 -Current Borrowings, an entry for "Loan from Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd." amounting to 24,25,00,000/-. Note 4.3 of the said balance sheet states as follows:
“The company received loans and advances of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- (Previous Year Rs. 24,25,00,000/-) for development of land from a party. This advance was refundable on premium after development of project or the party is entitled to claim plot of developed land. The project could not take off due to stay of Hon'ble Supreme Court restraining companies from encumbrance, alienating and converting any asset/land of the company till further orders. Hence company could not transfer part of its land into the new SPVs and the project of the company was therefore put on hold. However, subsequent decision of Hon'ble Court was in favour of company. Company is in process of identifying Partner to develop the Project. No interest/premium has been provided on Secured Loans and Advances up to Previous Year as party has not so far withdrawn its support from ongoing projects of the company and management will be giving them a part of developed land as per terms or issuing financial instruments as per law.”
b. Further the following note forms part of the “Basis for Qualified Opinion” in our audited financial statements: -
“As stated in Note 4.3 of the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Group received funding amounting to 24,25,00,000/- (Previous Year Rs. 24,25,00,000/-) for development of land from a party. This advance was refundable on premium after development of project in fixed time. The project could not take off and no refund has been made till date to a party which has advanced (Previous Year Rs. 24,25,000.00/-) either on account of original advance or premium. The management is of the view that these advances are linked to development of Project only, and post development of project, the party will be paid original amount with renegotiated premium or they will have option to takeover folly developed land as per their entitlement or management will be issuing some financial instrument permissible as per law. Consequently, we are unable to comment on the ultimate effect of the above in the financial statement.”
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not disputed the aforesaid balance sheet dated 31.03.2022, which has been filed with the ROC. Infact, the said balance sheet also bears the signatures of Defendant No. 3. So also, Defendant No. 4 has placed on record letters dated 26.07.2022 and 16.09.2022 issued by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to the Plaintiff acknowledging principal debt of Rs.27.75 crores and the debt inclusive of interest of Rs.148.40 crores as on 30.09.2022.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in its subsequent pleadings has not disputed issuance of these letters dated 26.07.2022 and 16.09.2022, filed by Defendant No. 4 as Annexure B along with its affidavit dated 06.09.2024. The said letters also bear the signatures of Defendant No. 3.
This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the submissions of Defendant No. 3 that the entries in the books of accounts of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 acknowledging the receipt of loans from the Plaintiff are not genuine but have been created by Defendant No. 4 in collusion with the Plaintiff.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have further alleged that Defendant No. 4 created a charge of Rs. 150 crores over 280 acres of land owned by Defendant No. 1 on 23.01.2023. It is alleged that the creation of this charge is evidence of money laundering between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4.
In response, the Plaintiff has contended that the present suit has been filed on basis of CFAA dated 29.09.2020, which was executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. And since, Defendant No. 4 was not a party to the said agreement, the said Defendant has been impleaded as ‘proforma defendant’ and no relief has been sought against the same.
This Court has examined the submissions of the parties.
Defendant No. 4 along with its affidavit dated 06.09.2024 has brought on record an e-mail dated 05.01.2023 issued by Defendant No. 3 to the Plaintiff enclosing documents for creation of charge over 280 acres of land in favour of the Plaintiff. The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit are reproduced hereinbelow: -
“2.… ….
d. That it is also pertinent to bring to the attention of this Hon’ble Court an email dated January 5, 2023, sent by Defendant No. 3 (Vikram Srivastava) to the Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff Company, Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Mr. Pankaj Bharadwaj). This email, forwarding the Documents/Enclosures for creation of charge, clearly demonstrates Defendant No. 3's involvement in and knowledge of the charge creation process. The email dated 05.01.2023 sent by Defendant No. 3 (Vikram Srivastava) to the Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff Company, Ratna Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Mr. Pankaj Bharadwaj) is collectively annexed hereto and marked as Annexure C (Colly), and includes the following attachments:
a)GACL Charge Resolution dated 30th September 2022 (singularly signed by Defendant No. 3 as Chairman of Defendant No. 1 Company)
b)GACL Charge - Khasra No's 300 Acres (singularly signed by Defendant No. 3 as Chairman of Defendant No. 1 Company)
c)GACL Charge Map - 300 Acres (singularly signed by Defendant No. 3 as Chairman of Defendant No. 1 Company) These documents, all bearing the sole signature of Defendant No. 3, also unequivocally prove that he was not only aware of but actively spearheaded the process of creating the charge in favour of the Plaintiff.
e. THAT a Mortgage Deed dated 23.01.2023 was executed between Gwalior Agriculture Company Limited as Mortgagor and Ratna Commercial Enterprises Private Ltd. as Mortgagee. A copy of the Mortgage Deed dated 23.01.2023 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure D. As per the said Mortgage Deed, a mortgage was created on 280 acres of land owned by Gwalior Agriculture Company Limited. This mortgage was created as additional collateral security for the existing loan and potential future liabilities.
f. THAT Form CHG-1 was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 23/01/2023, a certified copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure E. This official document bears the digital signature of Defendant No. 3 (Vikram Srivastava), using his Director Identification Number (DIN) 00288111. It details the creation of additional collateral security through a mortgage on 280 acres of land in favour of the Plaintiff, specifying the charge amount as Rs. 150 crores. The form includes comprehensive particulars of the property charged. The aforesaid document, submitted under Defendant No. 3's digital signature, serves as incontrovertible evidence of his direct involvement in and authorization of the charge creation process and starkly contradicts his recent attempts to deny knowledge or participation in these transactions.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The aforesaid documents placed on record by Defendant No. 4 shows the active participation of Defendant No. 3 in the creation of charge over 280 acres of land in favour of the Plaintiff. The said documents do not lend any credence to the submissions of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
In any event, the said mortgage is not sought to be enforced in these proceedings and that the said document has only been relied upon to show the acknowledge of the debt documented in CFAA dated 29.09.2020.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the objection raised by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the present proceedings have been filed by the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant No. 4 is devoid of merits.
At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corpn.30, wherein the Court has settled the law with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court to grant an unconditional or a conditional leave to defend. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -
“32.1.In Mechelec Engineers [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] , the principles for consideration of a prayer for leave to defend in a summary suit were laid down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p. 690, para 8)
“8.In Kiranmayi Dasi v. J. Chatterji [Kiranmayi Dasi v. J. Chatterji, 1945 SCC OnLine Cal 114] , CWN at p. 253 Das, J., after a comprehensive review of authorities on the subject, stated the principles applicable to cases covered by Order 17 CPC in the form of the following propositions : (SCC OnLine Cal)
‘… (a) If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a good defence to the claim on its merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(b)If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence although not a positively good defence the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(c)If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he has a defence yet shews such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled to leave to defend, but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose condition as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security.
(d)If the defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine, then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend.
(e)If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then, although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defence to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence.”
32.2.In IDBI Trusteeship [IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 : (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 386] , this Court modulated the aforementioned principles and laid down as follows : (SCC pp. 596-97, para 17)
“17.Accordingly, the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded, given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros., AIR 1965 SC 1698] , as follows:
17.1.If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.
17.2.If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
17.3.Even if the defendant raises triable issues, if a doubt is left with the trial Judge about the defendant's good faith, or the genuineness of the triable issues, the trial Judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security.
17.4.If the defendant raises a defence which is plausible but improbable, the trial Judge may impose conditions as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court, or furnishing security. As such a defence does not raise triable issues, conditions as to deposit or security or both can extend to the entire principal sum together with such interest as the court feels the justice of the case requires.
17.5.If the defendant has no substantial defence and/or raises no genuine triable issues, and the court finds such defence to be frivolous or vexatious, then leave to defend the suit shall be refused, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith.
17.6.If any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant to be due from him, leave to defend the suit, (even if triable issues or a substantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court.” (emphasis in original)
33.It is at once clear that even though in IDBI Trusteeship [IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd., (2017) 1 SCC 568 : (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 386] , this Court has observed that the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec Engineers case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] shall stand superseded in the wake of amendment of Rule 3 of Order 37 but, on the core theme, the principles remain the same that grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception. Putting it in other words, generally, the prayer for leave to defend is to be denied in such cases where the defendant has practically no defence and is unable to give out even a semblance of triable issues before the court.
33.1.As noticed, if the defendant satisfies the Court that he has substantial defence i.e. a defence which is likely to succeed, he is entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In the second eventuality, where the defendant raises triable issues indicating a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence, albeit not a positively good defence, he would be ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In the third eventuality, where the defendant raises triable issues, but it remains doubtful if the defendant is raising the same in good faith or about genuineness of the issues, the trial court is expected to balance the requirements of expeditious disposal of commercial causes on one hand and of not shutting out triable issues by unduly severe orders on the other. Therefore, the trial court may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial as well as payment into the court or furnishing security. In the fourth eventuality, where the proposed defence appears to be plausible but improbable, heightened conditions may be imposed as to the time or mode of trial as also of payment into the court or furnishing security or both, which may extend to the entire principal sum together with just and requisite interest.
33.2.Thus, it could be seen that in the case of substantial defence, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave; and even in the case of a triable issue on a fair and reasonable defence, the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. In case of doubts about the intent of the defendant or genuineness of the triable issues as also the probability of defence, the leave could yet be granted but while imposing conditions as to the time or mode of trial or payment or furnishing security. Thus, even in such cases of doubts or reservations, denial of leave to defend is not the rule; but appropriate conditions may be imposed while granting the leave. It is only in the case where the defendant is found to be having no substantial defence and/or raising no genuine triable issues coupled with the court's view that the defence is frivolous or vexatious that the leave to defend is to be refused and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. Of course, in the case where any part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant, leave to defend is not to be granted unless the amount so admitted is deposited by the defendant in the court.” [Emphasis supplied]
In the facts of the present case, this Court however finds that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no substantial defence. The pleas raised by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 do not raise any genuine triable issue.
In the facts of this case, this Court finds that the amount of Rs.27.75 crores is the principal amount which was advanced by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. This principal amount is duly reflected in the balance sheet of the Plaintiff for the year ending 31.03.2023. The balance sheet of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the year ending 31.03.2022 also acknowledges the receipt of loan amounts.
So also, the letters dated 26.07.2022 and 16.09.2022 issued by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 acknowledged the principal debt amount of Rs.27.75 crores. As noted hereinabove, the balance sheet of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the year 31.03.2022 and the letters dated 26.07.2022 and 16.09.2022, bear the signature of Defendant No. 3. The copy of the letter dated 26.07.2022, placed on record is reproduced hereinbelow: -
This Court, therefore, finds with respect to the admitted debt of principal amount of Rs. 27.75 crores, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no substantial defence and they have not raised any genuine triable issue. To that extent, this suit is liable to be decreed forthwith for a sum of Rs. 27.75 crores.
The Plaintiff has pleaded that since the entire principal amount remained unpaid, the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 entered into CFAA dated 29.09.2020, wherein Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had acknowledged that a sum of Rs. 148.40 [which includes interest as well] is due and payable to the Plaintiff as on 30.09.2022. The said agreement at Clause 4.1 records that the outstanding loan amount is Rs. 106 crores. The terms and conditions pertaining to the rate of interest are also specifically stipulated on Clause 2.1 and Clause 5.1 of the said agreement. Clause 2.1 of the said agreement provides that the total outstanding loan amount has to be repaid subject to payment of interest at 16% p.a. and Clause 5.1 of the said agreement provides that in event of failure to repay, default interest would be charged at 22% p.a. on the total outstanding amount. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not disputed the signatures of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on this agreement.
The Plaintiff in its written submissions dated 22.08.2024 at paragraph no. ‘19’ has tabulated its claim as on 30.04.2023 at Rs. 160.74 crores as under:
“19.That the Plaintiff is entitled to a total sum of INR.160,74,27,197/- as on 30.04.2023, jointly and severally from the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the break of which is as follows:
| Sr. No. | Particulars | Amount (in INR.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Principal Amount | 106,00,00,000 |
| 2. | Interest @16% p.a. from 01.04.2020 to 09.03.2023 | 49,85,77,534 |
| 3. | Interest @22% p.a. from 09.03.2023 to 30.04.2023 | 4,88,49,663 |
| TOTAL | 1,60,74,27,197” |
The Plaintiff has also relied upon the communication dated 16.09.2022 jointly issued by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 acknowledging the total outstanding amount of Rs. 148.40 crores. The copy of the letter dated 16.09.2022, placed on record is reproduced hereinbelow: -
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not disputed the execution of the contemporaneous documents executed in favour of the Plaintiff; the deed of guarantee dated 29.09.2020 executed by Defendant No. 3, the deed of pledge dated 29.09.2020 executed by Defendant No. 2 and the two (2) post-dated cheques dated 30.09.2022 for a sum of Rs.148.40 crores signed by Defendant No. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 also issued several other documents contemporaneously which have been filed on record.
All these documents prove beyond doubt that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have entered into written contract dated 29.09.2020 admitting to liability of Rs.148.40 crores payable to the Plaintiff as on 30.09.2022.
In view of the settled position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corpn. [supra], the Court finds that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to raise any bona fide or substantial defence that warrants trial. The defences set up by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are devoid of merit. Accordingly, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are not entitled to leave to defend, and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment under Order XXXVII CPC for an amount of Rs.1,60,74,27,197/-along with pendente lite interest at 12% per annum and future interest at 12% per annum.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are granted two [2] months’ time to make the aforesaid payment, failing which it shall be liable to make payment of interest at 15% per annum, on the decretal amount, from the date of the judgment until realization.
In view of the aforesaid findings, the applications being I.A. 14591/2023 and I.A. 6898/2024 are hereby dismissed.
The suit is decreed in the above terms. Registry of this Court is directed to draw a decree sheet accordingly.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
All future dates stand cancelled.
The Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this judgment to the Defendants through email for compliance of the decree.
Footnotes
- 1.Non-Banking Financial Company
- 2.Set out at page 67 of document no. 10 of the plaint
- 3.Set out at page 82 of the plaint
- 8.Filed as Document No. 53 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 9.Filed as Document No. 54 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 10.Filed as Document No. 55 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 12.Filed as Document No. 67 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 14.Filed as Document No. 52 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 15.Filed as Document No. 53 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 16.Filed as Document No. 54 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 17.Filed as Document No. 55 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 18.Filed as Document No. 65 (Colly.) by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 19.Filed as Document No. 65 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 20.Filed as Document No. 66 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 21.Filed as Document No. 67 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 22.Filed as Document No. 68 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 23.Filed as Document No. 63 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 24.Filed as Document No. 69 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 25.Filed as Document No. 72 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 26.Filed as Document No. 73 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 27.Filed as Document No. 76 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 28.Filed as Document No. 79 by the Plaintiff along with the plaint.
- 29.National Company Law Tribunal
- 30.(2022) 3 SCC 294