Mr Sunil Alagh v. Mr Shivraj Puri & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JANUARY 07, 2019 'bs'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 7th January, 2019 + SUNIL ALAGH ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Manav Gupta, Ms. Esha Dutta, Mr. Sahil Garg and Mr. Devang Kumar, Advs. Versus SHIVRAJ PURI & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Adv. for D-2 with D-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This suit for recovery of money is ripe for framing of issues. 2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the written statement of the defendants does not raise any material proposition of fact or law on which an issue arises and the suit is entitled to be decreed forthwith. 3. The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant No.2 Raghuraj Puri have been heard and the files perused. 4. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of Rs.2,39,50,000/-, pleading (i) that the plaintiff based at Mumbai is the sole proprietor of M/s SKA Advisors; (ii) that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 Raghuraj Puri have been known to each other for long and have had family relations; (iii) that the defendant No.1 Shivraj Puri is the son of defendant No.2 Raghuraj Puri and the defendants have been residents of Gurgaon, Haryana and are in the business of rendering financial and advisory services in the name of M/s Normans Consultancy Private Limited; (iv) that in April, 2013, the defendants had approached the plaintiff for financial help in the form of short term loan, to enable the defendants to establish their new business and had assured the plaintiff that the loan amount would be expeditiously returned along with bank interest; (v) that the defendant No.1 sent to the plaintiff the bank account details of defendant No.2 to enable the plaintiff to transfer the loan amount to defendant No.2's account; (vi) that it was the defendant No.1 who used to handle most of the financial affairs on behalf of both the defendants and the defendant No.1 met the plaintiff at New Delhi on several occasions for the said purpose; (vii) that the plaintiff, between 25th April, 2013 and 19th June, 2014, from time to time transferred monies by way of loan to the bank account of the defendant No.2 at New Delhi of which particulars were furnished by the defendant No.1; (viii) that a total of Rs.3,47,50,000/- was so transferred by the plaintiff to the bank account of the defendant No.2 through RTGS; (ix) that the defendants failed to return the said amount and after much delay returned a total sum of Rs.1,08,00,000/- only, from time to time, between 29th April, 2013 to 25th June, 2014, leaving a balance of Rs.2,39,50,000/-; (x) that the defendants, though through emails and otherwise assured to return the said balance but failed to do so; (xi) that the plaintiff subsequently discovered that the defendant No.1 and his wife Deeksha Puri were habitual criminals and were convicted in the Citybank fraud case which was to the tune of approximately Rs.300 crores to Rs.400 crores; and, (xii) that the defendants, on 26th September, 2014 entered into a Memorandum of Settlement with the plaintiff and had undertaken to return the amount of Rs.13.15 crores. Hence, this suit for recovery of Rs.2,39,50,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. 5. The suit was entertained and summons ordered to be issued to the defendants. The defendants have filed a joint written statement inter alia pleading, (a) that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as neither of the defendants are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court nor carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, though at one point of time had their office at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi but the said office was sold off in 2013 itself; (b) that admittedly the monies were never transferred to the account of the defendant No.1 and thus the plaintiff cannot seek recovery of monies against the defendant No.1; (c) that the monies given by the plaintiff to the defendant No.2 were for th