T. Venkat Ram Reddy v. M/S Blue Chip Capital Services Pvt Ltd & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. APRIL 17, 2017/"gsr" (corrected & released on 10th May, 2017)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DATE OF DECISION: 17 TH APRIL, 2017 + CS(OS) No.96/2017, IA No.2514/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) & IA No.2515/2017 (under Order I Rule 10 CPC) T. VENKAT RAM REDDY ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Mr. Shikhar Sareen, Ms. Niharika & Mr. Vekat Reddy, Advs. Versus BLUE CHIP CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kamal Kumar, Adv. for D-2. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for the reliefs of i) cancellation of registered Deed of Assignment dated 9th August, 2012; ii) cancellation of registered Supplementary Deed of Assignment dated 3rd September, 2012; iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants viz. Blue Chip Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (BCCSPL) and Religare Finvest Ltd. (RFL) to handover the original Deeds of Assignment for the purposes of cancellation thereof; and, iv) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from flat No.105 on the first floor of building known as "Silver Arch" at 22, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi, pleading: (a) that the plaintiff is the owner of the said flat vide registered Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney in his favour; (b) that the plaintiff is one of the Directors / Promoters of M/s Deccan Chronicle Holding Ltd. (DCHL); (c) that the defendant no.2 RFL sanctioned Rs.200 crores in favour of DCHL as loan and disbursed the same; (d) that the defendant no.2 RFL being in a position to dominate the will of the plaintiff, obtained an unfair advantage by forcing the plaintiff to deposit the documents pertaining to the said flat with the defendant no.2 RFL on 8th June, 2002; (e) that the defendant no.2 RFL recalled the loan prematurely; (f) that DCHL was not in a position to repay the loan and was compelled to provide additional securities to defendant no.2 RFL and also asked the plaintiff to execute transfer documents in respect of the said flat, title documents whereof were already in possession of defendant no.2 RFL; (g) that the plaintiff was not willing therefor; (h) that the defendant no.2 RFL threatened to take coercive steps against DCHL and also assured the plaintiff that it only intended to create a document and not a sale deed with respect to the said flat, merely for securitising the loan and execution of such a document by the plaintiff with respect to the flat would be a mere formality for the sake of auditing; the plaintiff was further assured by the defendant no.2 RFL that the plaintiff would continue to enjoy the peaceful possession of the said flat and no exchange of money would take place between the concerned parties; believing the assurances of the defendant no.2 RFL, the plaintiff was induced in August, 2012 into executing the Deed of Assignment and subsequently the Supplementary Deed of Assignment on 3rd September, 2012 in favour of the defendant no.1 BCCSPL which was introduced to the plaintiff for the first time by the defendant no.2 RFL; (i) that the Deed of Assignment was executed for a mere consideration of Rs.1.5 crores which was increased to Rs.7,13,70,000/- via Supplementary Deed dated 3rd September, 2012, though the market value of the flat is approximately Rs.10 crores; (j) that the transaction of Deed of Assignment and Supplementary Deed of Assignment was a sham which is evident from the fact that even the negligible consideration amount was not transferred to the account of the plaintiff and as promised, the plaintiff continued to enjoy the possession of the said flat; (k) that on 21st April, 2016, attempt was made to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and his family from the said flat; (l) that on account of non-payment of the loan advanced by defendant no.2 RFL to DCHL, the dispute was referred for adjudication by way of arbitration; the defendant no.2 RFL in its rejoinder filed in March, 2014 in the said proceedings stated that nine out of the total imm