Anda di halaman 1dari 19

IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,

NEW DELHI

C.S (OS) No. /2016.

IN THE MATTER OF:

KAILASH DEVI KHANNA & ORS. ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

D.D. GLOBAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. DEFENDANTS

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

C.S (OS) No. /2016.

IN THE MATTER OF:

KAILASH DEVI KHANNA & ORS. ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

D.D. GLOBAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

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

has deliberately suppressed material facts.

2. That the Plaintiffs had advanced different amounts of money to different

defendants and the same amount to separate transactions. Hence, the suit

is bad for misjoinder of cause of actions.


3. That the Plaintiffs had advanced the alleged amounts separately and not as

a single entity giving rise to separate claims from different defendants.

Hence, the present suit is bad for misjoinder of plaintiffs.

4. That, the suit for recovery filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant no.

3 herein is not maintainable as Defendant no. 3 is merely a shareholder of

the Defendant no.1 and has no role to play as such in the said transactions

as alleged by the Plaintiff in the suit.

5. That, it is a well settled law that in a suit for recovery of money, only such

persons can be impleaded as defendants against whom averments are

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

Defendant no. 3 herein is shareholder of the Defendant no. 1 and cannot

be held for any liability which is executed or sanctioned by the Defendant

no.1

6. That, the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as well as cause of action in

respect to Defendant no. 3 herein, there is no prima-facie cause of action

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

any person on behalf of the Defendant no.1

7. That, the Plaintiff itself admits in paragraph no.3 of the plaint that

Defendant no.3 is a promoter and a shareholder of the Defendant no.1.


Therefore, making it abundantly clear that the Defendant no. 3 herein has

no role to play in the transactions alleged by the Plaintiff in the suit.

Hence, suit being misconceived, frivolous and de-facto not maintainable

in the eyes law against the Defendant no.3/Applicant herein.

8. The money that the Plaintiffs allege to have given, have in fact been given

to different Defendants and there is no nexus between the separate claims

from separate Defendants. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have unnecessarily

dragged Defendant No. 3 into this false and frivolous suit to unjustly

enrich from the hard earned money of the defendant. Therefore, the suit

should be dismissed on misjoinder of defendants.

9. That although there is no nexus between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant

No. 3, it is submitted that since the Plaintiffs have alleged Defendant No.

3 to be director of Defendant No. 1, it may be brought to the notice of the

Plaintiffs that, the Corporate Veil of Defendant No. 1 cannot be lifted with

a mere allegation of fraud and that sufficient material has to be placed on

record to prove that the allegation can be sustained.

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

helping the defendants 2 and 5 in contesting litigation with the defendant

no. 3.
REPLY ON MERITS:

At the outset, it is submitted that answering Defendant no.3 is only

replying to the averments which are made in respect to and against the

Defendant no. 3 in the suit under reply.

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

for recovery lies against Defendant No. 3. It is submitted that Defendant

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

on the ground of misjoinder of defendants alone.

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

plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. It is vehemently denied

that Defendant No. 1 is under the entire and exclusive control of

Defendants 2, 3 and 5. It is submitted that plaintiffs are well aware of the

fact that Defendant no.3 resigned as a Director of the Defendant no.1 in

the year 2006 and at the same time had also transferred his shareholding.

It is only in order to unjustly enrich from Defendant No. 3 Plaintiffs are

trying to falsely implicate Defendant No. 3 by establishing that Defendant

No. 3 had exclusive control over Defendant No. 1.


4. The contents of Para No. 4 of the Plaint are matter of record and need no

reply.

5. The contents of Para No. 5 & 6 of the Plaint are wrong and denied and the

plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. It is denied that

Defendant No. 3 approached the plaintiffs and made any representations at

all. It is further denied that Defendant No. 3 wanted to diversify his

business and that he was in need of any funds for the same.It is submitted

that Defendant No. 3 is running a successful venture and has no need to

diversify his business.

6. The contents of Para No. 7 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is denied

that Defendant No. 3 made any representations of trading in auto

components through Defendant no.4 to the Plaintiff and it is further wrong

and denied that he furnished the profit and loss account or balance sheet of

Defendant No. 4 to the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have

unnecessarily alleged the same to drag Defendant No. 3 into this

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

in business. It is further denied that Defendant No.3 visited the premises

of the Plaintiffs let alone ask for any deposit of Rs 1,50,00,000 as alleged

by the Plaintiffs. It is reiterated that the Plaintiffs are trying to falsely


implicate Defendant No. 3 to unjustly enrich from him by falsely

impleading him in the said suit as a defendant.

8. The contents of Para No. 9 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. The

Defendant No. 3 never promised to give a minimum rate of return of 21%

p.a compounded quarterly to the Plaintiffs, further it is denied that

Defendant no. 3 agreed to discharge their obligation towards the deposits

on a quarterly basis, furthermore it is denied that Defendant no. 3 agreed

that deposits made by the plaintiffs would be repayable to the Plaintiff on

demand along with the return on investment thereon.

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

personal liability accrued on Defendant No. 3. It is submitted that the

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

executed or any agreements made shows that the plaintiffs wish to

unjustly enrich from the hard earned money of Defendant No. 3.

10.The contents of Para No. 11 of the Plaint are wrong and denied and

plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. It is denied that

Defendant No. 3 had acted on behalf of Defendant No. 4 jointly with

Defendants No. 2 and 5 for receiving said amount towards Defendant No.

4. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs having knowledge of the fact that

Defendant No. 3 is Partner of Defendant No. 4 have falsely impleaded


Defendant No. 3 for unjust enrichment by making the said Defendant part

with his hard earned money. It is further reiterated that the current suit

should be dismissed on account of misjoinder of defendants. It is further

submitted that the Plaintiffs have forwarded the amounts as alleged

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

reply. Therefore, the suit needs to dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder

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

the plaintiffs a return @ 21% p.a compounded quarterly, and payable to

the Plaintiffs on a quarterly basis, furthermore it is vehemently and

categorically denied that Defendant no. 3 agreed to bind himself as

surety/guarantor towards discharge of any obligation qua the alleged

deposit and returns.

12. The contents of Para No. 13 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is

vehemently denied that Defendant No. 3 discharged any alleged obligation

of repayment towards the return of any investment, further it is denied

that, the returns were paid by the Defendant no. 3 to the plaintiffs till

March, 2010 @ of 12 % p.a. compounded quarterly. It vehemently denied

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

Plaintiffs unnecessarily are dragging Defendant No. 4 in this suit for

siphoning his money. It is also reiterated that the Defendant No. 3 is

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

proof of their averments.

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

question of discharge of their liability. Further it is vehemently denied that

Defendant no. 3 has issued any TDS Certificate on behalf of Defendant

No. 4 to the Plaintiffs, Defendant no. 3 has no knowledge of any email

dated 16.09.2013, hence denied. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs to

implicate Defendant No. 3 have placed on record documents, which does

not pertains to Defendant no. 3 or incur any liability on Defendant no. 3.


15.The contents of Para No. 16 & 17 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is

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

the Plaintiffs or in fact the Plaintiffs approached Defendant No. 3 for

regularization of any payment as alleged. It is reiterated that the Defendant

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

other from a long time, and therefore cannot collectively promise

anything. It is a orchestrated move of the Plaintiff to implicate the

Defendant no. 3 in the present suit.

16. The contents of Para No. 18 of the Plaint does not pertains to Defendant

no.3, hence needs no reply.

17.The contents of Para no. 19 of the Plaint does not concern the answering

Defendant no.3 and hence needs no reply.

18.The contents of Para No. 20 of the Plaint does not pertains to Defendant

no.3 hence needs no reply. However it is submitted that Plaintiffs

unnecessarily time and again have tried to implicate Defendant No. 3 and

drag him into unnecessary litigation.

19.The contents of Para No. 21 of the Plaint does not concern the answering

Defendant and hence need no reply. However, it is submitted that

Defendants no. 2 and 5 had clearly mentioned to the Plaintiffs that


Defendant No. 3 had nothing to do with the alleged deposits of 2012 and

that the Plaintiffs have acknowledged the same in their pleadings. It is

further submitted that from this alone it can be seen that there are separate

cause of actions arises out of different transaction therefore, the suit be

dismissed due to misjoinder of cause of actions.

20.The Contents of Para No. 22 30 does not pertains to Defendant no.3 and

hence needs no reply. However, It is submitted that the answering

Defendant has no control over Defendant No. 1 as alleged by the Plaintiffs

and also that the, it is only in order to unjustly enrich from the hard earned

money of Defendant No. 3 Plaintiffs are trying to siphon the money of

Defendant No. 3 by falsely alleging him to have control over Defendant

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

money deposited, it is clarified and reiterated that Defendant no. 3 had

never taken any amount as alleged from the Plaintiffs. It is further

reiterated that the Defendant No. 3 has been unnecessarily, falsely and just

to harass has been made party to the present suit.

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

Defendant No. 3 was contacted by the Plaintiffs as alleged or that


Defendant No. 3 gave any evasive response towards the demand of the

alleged money.

23.That the contents of Para No. 33 of the Plaint does not pertains to

Defendant no.3. However, It is vehemently denied that answering

defendant no.3 has any executive of fiduciary role to play in Defendant

no.1 or its director. It is reiterated that Defendant no. 3 is merely a

shareholder of the Defendant no.1 and has no role to play as such in the

said transactions as alleged by the Plaintiff in the present suit.

24.That the contents of Para No. 34 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is

wrong and denied that Defendant no. 3 is a major shareholder of the

Defendant no.1 Company, further it is categorically denied that,

Defendant no. 3 has made its employee as Directors and additional

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

the employees of Defendant No. 3. It is frivolous that, Defendant no. 3

fraudulently misrepresented to the plaintiffs to usurp their hard earned

money through the veil of a Company.

25.That the contents of Para No. 35 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is

wrong and denied that Defendant No. 3 is the person in charge of

Defendant No. 1 as alleged by the Plaintiffs, further it is denied that

Defendant no. 3 is cheating the public or carrying out any fraud


whatsoever. It is submitted that a mere allegation of fraud on the public 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

same, which the Plaintiffs have failed to do.

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.

However it is denied that the directors of the companies mentioned are

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

falsely implicating the Defendant No. 3 as having control in multiple

companies and that the directors of the said companies are different

persons as acknowledged by the Plaintiffs themselves after having gone

through the records of the ROC.

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

has any control of Defendant No. 1 as alleged by the Plaintiffs, further it is

denied Defendant no. 3 is in connivance with other Defendants and

misrepresented the Plaintiffs. In fact it is reiterated that the Plaintiffs are

misleading this Honble Court by falsely impleading Defendant No. 3 as a

party to this suit to siphon his money and to harass the Defendant herein ,

further wasting the valuable time of this Honble Court.


28.The contents of Para no. 39 of the Plaint are wrong and denied. It is

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

that Defendant No. 1 is a faade created by Defendant no. 3 to induce the

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

denied that any fraud was played on part of Defendant No. 3. It is

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

the hard earned money of Defendant No. 3 by levelling baseless

allegations against him.

30.That the contents of Para No. 41 of the Plaint are wrong and denied unless

admitted and Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. It is

denied that any amount was forwarded to Defendant No. 3 by the

Plaintiffs. It is also denied that Defendant No. 3 conspired in any way to

criminally cheat the Plaintiffs as alleged. It is reiterated that the Plaintiffs

are levelling baseless allegations against Defendant No. 3 to harass and

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%

against the alleged deposit. It is further denied that Defendant No. 3

received any calls from the Plaintiffs inquiring about any money and

evaded to respond the requisition of the Plaintiffs.

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

misjoinder of cause of actions. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs

forwarded the alleged amounts individually and that the suit also suffers

from misjoinder of Plaintiffs. It is also submitted that the Defendant No. 3

was unnecessarily dragged into false and frivolous litigation and that the

suit also suffers from misjoinder of defendants. Therefore, the suit is liable

to be dismissed on the aforementioned pleadings.

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

alleged part payment paid .to the Plaintiffs.

34.That the contents of Para No. 46 49 are wrong and denied. It is

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.

It is specifically denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any recovery from

the answering defendant no.3 along with interest and/or interest at any

rate. The preliminary objections and submissions made above be read as

part and parcel to the para under rely as same are not repeated for sake of

brevity and repetition.

36.The prayer clause, as made by the Plaintiff is wrong and denied. The

Plaintiff is not entitled to any of relief as prayed.

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

in favour of the Answering Defendants and against the Plaintiff.

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

correct as per information received, which is believed to be true. Last Para

No.___ is reply to prayer clause and prayer made before this Honble court.

Verified at Delhi on this____ day of ____________, 2016.

(DEFENDANT No.3)
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
NEW DELHI

C.S (OS) No. /2016.

IN THE MATTER OF:

KAILASH DEVI KHANNA & ORS. ...PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

D.D. GLOBAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Sh. _________________aged years,

of_________________________________________

I, the above named Deponent do hereby solemnly state and affirm as

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

competent to depose this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Written Statement has been drafted by my

counsel on my instructions. The contents of the accompanying Written

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

above affidavit are true to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing

relevant has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Delhi on this___day of__________, 2015.

(DEPONENT)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai