Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1722 (DEL)

MAHESH K. GUPTA v. KAILASH SHARMA

2007-08-27

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2007
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction and damages of Rs. 25. 00 lakh. The cause of the suit arose out of the alleged conduct of the defendants. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims to be a Chartered Accountant practicing for the last 30 years under the name and style of Nath and Mahesh Associates, Chartered accountants. The son and daughter of the plaintiff are also stated to be chartered Accountants. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 is a property dealer and since the plaintiff was having ancestral farm home at Jind, haryana and a share in a petrol pump, defendant No. 1 met the plaintiff at the petrol pump and offered to assist in the sale of the farm house. The plaintiff agreed to avail of the services of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is alleged not to have been able to obtain a customer but defendant No. 1 offered to arrange a loan against the said farm house. ( 3 ) ON 10. 5. 2005, defendant No. 1 is stated to have come to the office of the plaintiff for his loan commission, which was declined by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is stated to have become angry and furious and started abusing the plaintiff. On 27. 5. 2005 defendant No. 1 again came to the office of the plaintiff along with certain other persons, who were doing finance business with him. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 and one Shri Subhash Chand Gupta threatened to kill the plaintiff by taking out a desi katta. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a complaint to the police. ( 4 ) THE cause of filing the present suit arose when the plaintiff on 25. 5. 2005 received a fax from one Shri Ram Bhagat, defendant No. 2. The original letter was addressed to the Hon'ble Finance Minister and the letter contained allegations against the plaintiff and his family members of having committed a scam/fraud in connivance with one Shri Jai Prakash. Copies of this letter was forwarded to various authorities. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 26. 5. 2005 to said defendant No. 2, which was received back unserved as no such person was found residing at the given address. However, another letter dated 29. 5. 2005 was received in similar terms. Copies of this letter was forwarded to various authorities. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 26. 5. 2005 to said defendant No. 2, which was received back unserved as no such person was found residing at the given address. However, another letter dated 29. 5. 2005 was received in similar terms. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2, wherever he exists, is attempting to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff and causing harassment at the behest of defendant No. 1 and has made imputation of cheating, fraudulent transactions and defrauding the banks. The plaintiff claims to be a well established professional. ( 6 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 appeared and filed the written statement. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that through his contacts with United Bank of India, he had arranged for a loan for the plaintiff but the plaintiff failed to pay the commission. After persuation an undated cheque was issued but subsequently it was stated that cash would be paid in place thereof. Defendant No. 1 claims that the 2 per cent commission, which was to be paid to defendant No. 1 has not been paid. ( 7 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 also stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence as Exhibit PW-1/a affirming to the averments made in the plaint. The complaint made is Exhibit PW-2 while the earlier Memorandum of Understanding in respect of the farm house is Exhibit P-1. The averments of the plaintiff have remained unrebutted. ( 8 ) IN view of the averments made in the plaint and the documents placed on record it is clear that defendant No. 1 claimed some commission for having arranged a loan through a nationalised bank. There is no document placed on record by the defendant and it is difficult to see as to how such a commission would be payable. Be that as it may defendant No. 1 has not proved the averments as set out in the written statement. ( 9 ) THE plaintiff cannot be harassed in this fashion, which is sought to be done by the defendants writing to different authorities, which seems to be a methodology for extracting the amount, which defendant No. 1 claims is payable to him, (which the defendants have failed to establish ). ( 9 ) THE plaintiff cannot be harassed in this fashion, which is sought to be done by the defendants writing to different authorities, which seems to be a methodology for extracting the amount, which defendant No. 1 claims is payable to him, (which the defendants have failed to establish ). The communications of defendant No. 2 prove that he may be acting at the behest of defendant No. 1. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid, a decree for recovery of damages is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of Rs. 5. 00 lakh along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9 per cent per annum. A decree is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from writing/circulating the words/letters affecting the profession and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.