NEW DELHI
VERSUS
Through:
(SIDDARTH BAMBHA)
ADVOCATE
BAMBHA & NANDAN ASSOCIATES
28/44, Punjabi Bagh (West)
NEW DELHI-110026
D-983/2006
Mobile No.9811327014
Email id: sbambhaoffice@gmail.com
Delhi,
Dated: /09/2016
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
NEW DELHI
VERSUS
1. The present suit is a blatant abuse of the process of this Honble Court.
The Plaintiff has approached this Honble Court with unclean hands and
defendants and the same amount to separate transactions. Hence, the suit
4. That, the suit for recovery filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant no.
the Defendant no.1 and has no role to play as such in the said transactions
5. That, it is a well settled law that in a suit for recovery of money, only such
made which on proof will entitle the plaintiff to a decree, however, that
not being the case herein, as Defendant no. 3 never indulged in any
negotiation with Plaintiff for advancing money in any business, further the
no.1
6. That, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as well as cause of action in
against the Defendant no. 3 herein and further Defendant no. 3 being a
shareholder has no power as such to enter into any such negotiation with
7. That, the Plaintiff itself admits in paragraph no.3 of the plaint that
8. The money that the Plaintiffs allege to have given, have in fact been given
dragged Defendant No. 3 into this false and frivolous suit to unjustly
enrich from the hard earned money of the defendant. Therefore, the suit
No. 3, it is submitted that since the Plaintiffs have alleged Defendant No.
Plaintiffs that, the Corporate Veil of Defendant No. 1 cannot be lifted with
10. That Defendant no. 3 had been in active litigation with the defendant no
2 and 5 since the year 2010, these litigation had been heavily contested
between the parties before this Honble Court upto to the Honble
Supreme court of India. Further the plaintiff family had been assisting and
no. 3.
REPLY ON MERITS:
replying to the averments which are made in respect to and against the
1. The contents of Para No. 1 of the Plaint are wrong and denied and
plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments made therein. No suit
No. 3 has taken no money from the plaintiffs and that as he has been
falsely impleaded in the present suit. The said suit needs to be dismissed
2. The contents of Para No. 2 is a matter are a matter of record and needs no
reply.
3. The contents of Para No. 3 of the plaint are wrong and denied and the
the year 2006 and at the same time had also transferred his shareholding.
reply.
5. The contents of Para No. 5 & 6 of the Plaint are wrong and denied and the
business and that he was in need of any funds for the same.It is submitted
6. The contents of Para No. 7 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is denied
and denied that he furnished the profit and loss account or balance sheet of
unnecessary Litigation.
7. The contents of Para No. 8 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is denied
that Defendant No. 3 asked the Plaintiffs for any deposit of money for use
of the Plaintiffs let alone ask for any deposit of Rs 1,50,00,000 as alleged
8. The contents of Para No. 9 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. The
9. The contents of Para No. 10 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
denied that any deposit was made towards Defendant No. 3 and that any
plaintiffs have unjustly tried to make Defendant No. 3 party to a false and
frivolous suit. It is further submitted that the fact that no documents were
10.The contents of Para No. 11 of the Plaint are wrong and denied and
Defendants No. 2 and 5 for receiving said amount towards Defendant No.
with his hard earned money. It is further reiterated that the current suit
separately the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim compensation jointly, the
same is evident from the table submitted by the plaintiff in the para under
of Plaintiffs alone.
11.The contents of Para No. 12 are wrong and denied. It is denied that it was
agreed by the Defendant no. 3 that Plaintiffs would be treated as one entity
for the deposits, further it is denied that Defendant no. 3 is liable to give
12. The contents of Para No. 13 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
that, the returns were paid by the Defendant no. 3 to the plaintiffs till
that Defendant no. 3 assured that he would regularize the rest of the
payments later on. It is reiterated that since the Plaintiffs had knowledge
of the fact the Defendant No. 3 was a partner in Defendant No. 4, the
unjustly made a party to this suit and that the suit be dismissed due to
misjoinder of Defendants.
13.The contents of Para No. 14 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
submitted that Defendant no. 3 had any role in furnishing the confirmation
of accounts as alleged in the para under reply, plaintiffs are put to strict
14.The contents of Para No. 15 are wrong and denied and the Plaintiffs are
put to strict proof of their averments. It is denied that Defendant No. 3 had
any liability towards the Plaintiffs and that the Defendant No. 3 had any
knowledge of any deducted tax qua the alleged liability or issued any
form 16A under the Income Tax Act to this effect, therefore there is no
denied that the Defendant No.3 was under any obligation to pay/return
money to the Plaintiffs. It is further denied that the Defendant No. 3 met
No. 3 never took any money from the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that the
Plaintiffs are well aware that Defendant no. 3 does not maintain any
cordial relations with Defendant no. 2 & 5 and are in litigation with each
16. The contents of Para No. 18 of the Plaint does not pertains to Defendant
17.The contents of Para no. 19 of the Plaint does not concern the answering
18.The contents of Para No. 20 of the Plaint does not pertains to Defendant
unnecessarily time and again have tried to implicate Defendant No. 3 and
19.The contents of Para No. 21 of the Plaint does not concern the answering
further submitted that from this alone it can be seen that there are separate
20.The Contents of Para No. 22 30 does not pertains to Defendant no.3 and
and also that the, it is only in order to unjustly enrich from the hard earned
No. 1 which is not the case. Hence the suit may be dismissed.
21. That the contents of Para No. 31 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
denied that Defendant No. 3 was ever contacted for a demand to return of
reiterated that the Defendant No. 3 has been unnecessarily, falsely and just
22.That the contents of Para No. 32 of the Plaint are wrong and denied and
the Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. It is denied that
alleged money.
23.That the contents of Para No. 33 of the Plaint does not pertains to
shareholder of the Defendant no.1 and has no role to play as such in the
24.That the contents of Para No. 34 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is
directors and chose to stand behind the corporate veil to perpetrate the
fraud by inducing the Plaintiffs to deposit their money with the company
so that Defendant no.3 could misappropriate the moneys. and that they are
25.That the contents of Para No. 35 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is
not sufficient for lifting the corporate veil of the company anyhow and
that the plaintiffs have to put on record sufficient evidence to prove the
26.The contents of Para No. 36 & 37 of the Plaint are wrong and denied for
want of knowledge and Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments.
mere puppet Directors who are set up as dummies and that the control of
the companies mentioned lie with the Defendant no.3 in any manner. It is
submitted that the Plaintiffs in order to prove their baseless claims are
companies and that the directors of the said companies are different
27.That the contents of Para No. 38 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
denied that Defendant No. 3 is part of any criminal conspiracy and that he
party to this suit to siphon his money and to harass the Defendant herein ,
denied that Defendant No. 3 has procured any deposit in the name of the
alleged paper sister concerns and the Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of
their averments.
29.The contents of Para no. 40 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is denied
Plaintiffs as alleged. It is denied that the Defendant No. 3 laid any traps
for the Plaintiffs to siphon off their money as alleged by them. It is further
submitted that the Plaintiffs in fact have instituted this false and frivolous
suit against Defendant No.3 and in turn are trying to unjustly enrich from
30.That the contents of Para No. 41 of the Plaint are wrong and denied unless
unjustly enrich from the hard earned money of the Defendant no.
31.That the contents of Para No. 42& 43 are wrong and denied and the
Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. It is denied that any
deposit was made towards Defendant No. 3, therefore there could not be
any right of the plaintiffs against Defendant no. 3 for rate of return @ 12%
received any calls from the Plaintiffs inquiring about any money and
32.That the contents of Para No. 44 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
denied that any cause of action ever arose on the alleged dates mentioned
in the para under reply. It is submitted that there are separate cause of
actions that arose on alleged dates and that the suit suffers from
forwarded the alleged amounts individually and that the suit also suffers
was unnecessarily dragged into false and frivolous litigation and that the
suit also suffers from misjoinder of defendants. Therefore, the suit is liable
33. That the contents of Para No. 45 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is
wrong and denied that, suit is filed within the period of limitation, further
it is denied that defendants are a single family entity with a open current
running account . It is submitted that Defendant no.3 had no role to play in
submitted that the Plaintiffs have not valued properly for the suit for the
purpose of jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs have not affixed the proper
Court fee as per the Court Fee Act and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
35.That the contents of Para No. 51 & 52 of the Plaint are wrong and denied.
the answering defendant no.3 along with interest and/or interest at any
part and parcel to the para under rely as same are not repeated for sake of
36.The prayer clause, as made by the Plaintiff is wrong and denied. The
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the same may kindly be dismissed
with cost.
Any other relief, order or directions, as this Honble court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed/ awarded
It is prayed accordingly.
(DEFENDANT No.3)
. Through:
(SIDDARTH BAMBHA)
BAMBHA & NANDAN ASSOCIATES
ADVOCATES
28/44, Punjabi Bagh (West)
NEW DELHI-110026
D-983/2006
Email id: sbambhaoffice@gmail.com
Delhi,
Dated: /09/2016.
VERIFICATION
I. the above named Defendant No.3 do hereby verify that the contents of
paras 1 to ____ of the above Written Statement On Merits are correct to our
knowledge and the contents of paras ___ to ____ of the Written Statement On
Merits and Paras 1 to ___ of Preliminary Objections are legal and the same are
No.___ is reply to prayer clause and prayer made before this Honble court.
(DEFENDANT No.3)
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
NEW DELHI
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
of_________________________________________
under:
1. That the Deponent is the Defendant No.2 in the present case and as such
is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and is
Statement are correct to my knowledge and as per record of the case. The
contents of the accompanying Written Statement may kindly be taken as part of
this affidavit as the same are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and
repetition.
(DEPONENT)
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named Deponent do hereby verify that the contents of the
(DEPONENT)