Bombay High Court
Carl Pinto De Andrade And 3 Ors vs Ventura Securities Limited on 23 February, 2021
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
1 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 74 OF 2019
IN
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1231 OF 2019
1) CARL PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ]
Goa-403 501. ]
2) SHREYA PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ]
Goa-403 501. ]
]
3) CYNTHIA PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ]
Goa-403 501. ]
4) MICHAEL PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
Deleted (since deceased) ]
4a) Cynthia Pinto De Andrade; ]
4b) Lucille Pinto De Andrade ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ] .. Applicants/Plaintiffs
Goa-403 501. ]
IN THE MATTER OF :
1) CARL PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
Shraddha Talekar PS 1/20
2 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ]
Goa-403 501. ]
2) SHREYA PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ]
Goa-403 501. ]
]
3) CYNTHIA PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ]
Goa-403 501. ]
4) MICHAEL PINTO DE ANDRADE, ]
Deleted (since deceased) ]
4a) Cynthia Pinto De Andrade; ]
4b) Lucille Pinto De Andrade ]
of Goa, Indian Inhabitant, aged ]
61 years, residing at G-203/204, ]
Devashri's Pintoville, Behind SBI, ]
Varsha Colony, Alto Porvorim, ] .. Plaintiffs
Goa-403 501. ]
VERSUS
VENTURA SECURITIES LIMITED, ]
A company registered with the Registrar ]
of Companies, under the provisions of the ]
Companies Act, 1956 and having its ]
registered office at 8th Floor, B-Wing, I- ]
Think Techno Campus, Pokhran Road ]
No.2, Off Eastern Express Highway, ]
Thane-400 607 and having its Head Office ]
at A-I, Building No.2, Kailash Ind. ]
Complex, Behind Godrej Residential ]
Colony, Parksite, Vikroli (West), Mumbai- ] .. Defendant
400 079. ]
Shraddha Talekar PS 2/20
3 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
***
Mr.Karl Tamboly a/w. Mrs. Yasmin Bhansali and Mr. Zaosh Irani i/b
Yasmin Bhansali & Co. for applicants/plaintiffs.
Mr.Simil Purohit a/w. Mr. Vishal Pattabiraman and adv. Mukhri i/b M/s.
Purohit and Co. for defendant.
***
CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.
Reserved for Judgment on : 29th January 2021.
Judgment Pronounced on : 23rd February 2021.
JUDGMENT :
1. This commercial division summary suit is instituted for recovery
of a sum of Rs.6,73,84,000/- along with further interest at the rate of 2
percent per month, on the principal sum of Rs.5,80,00,000/- from the
date of the suit till realization on the basis of a written contract.
2. The material averments in the plaint, can be stated in brief, as
under :-
(a) The plaintiffs are members of one family. The defendant
is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It
deals in the business of a brokerage house and is a corporate
member of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and the
National Stock Exchange of India Limited. The defendant had
invited deposits through its business partner M/s.Crefin India
Management Private Limited. It was represented to the
plaintiffs that a monthly return/interest of 2 percent would be
Shraddha Talekar PS 3/20
4 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
paid on investment. The principal amount would be invested
in an Index Stock Option Funds, which would ensure a
guarantee on capital invested. Over a period of time, the
plaintiffs invested a sum of Rs.5,80,00,000/-, the particulars of
which, are tabulated in paragraph 3(a) of the plaint.
(b) The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the said
amount by issuing letters dated 8 th July, 2016, 15th September
2016, 1st March 2018, and 1st September 2016 ('Welcome
Letters') and undertook the obligation to pay interest @ 2
percent per month from the date of investment, with a lock-in
period of six months. The said letters captioned, "Welcome
Letters" incorporate the contract to repay the principal amount
and the interest thereon.
(c) Initially, the defendant did pay interest, at the agreed
rate, through banking channels. In the month of January
2019, the plaintiffs were in pressing need of the funds. Hence,
the plaintiffs sought refund of the principal amount. Despite a
refund request having been lodged with the defendant, the
latter not only committed default in refunding the invested
amount but also stopped the payment of interest, which fell
due. The plaintiffs, thus, addressed a legal notice on 10 th
Shraddha Talekar PS 4/20
5 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
August 2019, and called upon the defendant to repay the
principal sum along with accrued interest in terms of the
contract.
(d) Despite service of the legal notice, the defendant neither
paid the amount nor gave reply. Hence, the plaintiffs were
constrained to institute the suit for recovery of the outstanding
amount along with interest.
3. The defendant appeared in response to the service of the writ of
summons. The defendant filed an affidavit in reply and sought an
unconditional leave to defend the suit. Thereupon, the plaintiffs took out
the summons for judgment.
4. The substance of the defence put-forth by the defendant is that
there was no privity of contract whatsoever between the plaintiffs and
the defendant. It was categorically denied that M/s. Crefin India
Management Private Limited, through whom the plaintiffs had allegedly
made the deposits, is the business partner of the defendant. The
defendant never had any relationship either commercial or otherwise
with the said M/s. Crefin India Management Private Limited.
5. It was denied that the plaintiffs had collectively invested the
principal sum of Rs.5,80,00,000/- with the defendant. Without disputing
Shraddha Talekar PS 5/20
6 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
that the defendant is a share and stock broker, it was contended that the
defendant does not accept any deposits or loans from any third party,
individual or corporate and has not authorized anybody to accept any
amount as and by way of deposit or otherwise in the name of the
defendant.
6. The defendant contended that the Welcome Letters, which
allegedly constitute the contract, were never addressed by the
defendant. Those letters are forged and fabricated. Those letters appear
to have been issued by one Mr.Ameet Savant. Though the said Mr.Ameet
Savant was affiliated to the defendant as its franchisee/authorised
person in accordance with the rules and regulations of SEBI/Stock
Exchange, he had no authority to issue and sign the said letters on
behalf of the defendant. Suggesting that the plaintiffs might have
entered into a private arrangement with Mr.Ameet Savant, the
defendant sought to deny the liability. The said Ameet Savant,
according to the defendant, had indulged in fraudulent activities in
respect of which criminal proceedings have been initiated at the instance
of the Economic Offences Cell of Goa Police against him. On these,
amongst other grounds, the defendant has prayed for an unconditional
leave to defend the suit.
Shraddha Talekar PS 6/20
7 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid defence, the plaintiff No.1 Mr.
Carl Pinto has filed an affidavit in rejoinder and the plaintiff No.2,
Shreya Pinto has filed a further affidavit in support of the summons for
judgment. The Trading Member and Authorised Person Agreement,
dated 11th December 2014 executed by and between the defendant and
Mr. Ameet Savant was produced and relied upon to establish the jural
relationship between the defendant and the said Mr.Ameet Savant. The
defendant joined the issue by filing an affidavit in sur-rejoinder.
8. In the wake of the aforesaid pleadings, I have heard Mr.Karl
Tamboly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Mr. Simil Purohit, the
learned counsel for the defendant at some length.
9. Mr. Tamboly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, laying
emphasis on the fact that the plaintiffs had not only invested the
principal sum of Rs.5,80,00,000/- with "Ventura" but had also received
the interest, as agreed under the terms of the contract, urged that the
defendant is trying to take up an illusory defence of lack of privity of
contract to wriggle out of the liability. To this end, Mr. Tamboly invited
the attention of the Court to the extracts of accounts (Exh. '5' to Exh. '8')
which evidence the credit of the amount to, and from, the account of
"Ventura".
Shraddha Talekar PS 7/20
8 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
10. Mr. Purohit, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted with
tenacity that none of the said entries pertains to the account of the
defendant. As a categorical statement was made on behalf of the
defendant that not a single rupee was deposited in the account of the
defendant nor any amount was paid to the plaintiffs by way of interest
or otherwise from the account of the defendant, the defendant was
directed to share the statement of its accounts with the banks for the
relevant period.
11. There is no qualm over the fact that the extracts of as many as 54
bank accounts of the defendant were made available to the plaintiffs,
and they were duly inspected by the plaintiffs. In order to narrow down
the controversy, it may be apposite, at this juncture itself, to note that
the extracts of accounts do not reflect direct credit of the amount from
the accounts of the plaintiffs to the account of the defendant and vice-
versa. The controversy thus boils down to the question as to whether the
defendant is liable for the transactions which were entered into through
its representative namely Mr.Ameet Savant.
12. Mr. Tamboly strenuously urged that in the backdrop of the
indubitable position that Mr.Ameet Savant was the authorised
representative of the defendant, which is evidenced by the Trading
Member and Authorised Person Agreement, dated 11 th December 2014
Shraddha Talekar PS 8/20
9 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
('Agreement, dated 11th December 2014'), the endeavour of the
defendant to contest the existence of privity of contract and disown the
liability is unsustainable.
13. Amplifying the submission, Mr. Tamboly urged that unsuspecting
investors were not in a position to comprehend that the formally
authorised person of the defendant was not entitled to lawfully accept
the deposits. Mr. Tamboly placed strong reliance on the covenants in the
said Agreement, dated 11th December 2014, which cast the liability on
the trading member for all acts of omission and commission of the
authorised person and/or their employees. The fact that the amount was
not directly credited in the account of the defendant, in the face of
indisputable jural relationship between the defendant and Mr.Ameet
Savant, pales in significance, urged Mr. Tamboly. It was further
submitted that the general public is entitled to look upon and believe the
representations of the authorised agent as that of the principal. In such a
situation, it is a legally impermissible for the principal to disown the
liability for the acts of the authorised agent, submitted Mr. Tamboly.
14. To bolster up the aforesaid submission, Mr. Tamboly placed
reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the
case of Delhi International Airport P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1. In
1 2017 SCC OnLine Del.7021
Shraddha Talekar PS 9/20
10 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
the said case, in the context of liability of the "franchisee" to pay service
tax, the Division Bench expounded the nature of the franchisee
agreement in the following words :
"58 A representational right would mean that a right is
available with the franchisee to represent the franchisor.
When the franchisee represents the franchisor, for all
practical purposes, the franchisee loses its individual
identity and would be know by the identity of the
franchisor. The individual identity of the franchisee is
subsumed in the identity of the franchisor. In the case of
a franchise, anyone dealing with the franchisee would
get an impression as if he were dealing with the
franchisor."
15. Countering the submission, Mr. Purohit, the learned counsel for
the defendant urged that the edifice of the submission now sought to be
built up on behalf of the plaintiffs does not find support in the plaint.
The plaintiffs have categorically averred in the plaint that the defendant
had invited the deposits through M/s.Crefin India Management Private
Limited. The plaintiffs have themselves disowned the self-stated case. In
contrast, the defendant had, at the first possible opportunity, contested
the existence of privity of contract and disputed the issuance of Welcome
Letters which allegedly constitute the contract. The defendant had
sought to explain the fraudulent nature of the said letters relied upon by
the plaintiffs. In that process, it was contended that those letters were
forged and fabricated by Mr.Ameet Savant, the then authorised
Shraddha Talekar PS 10/20
11 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
representative of the defendant. This, however, does not imply that the
defendant is liable for the fraudulent and criminal acts of Mr.Ameet
Savant, especially in the absence of any document to show that the
plaintiffs had entered into the transaction with the defendant. Since the
claim of the plaintiffs requires adjudication on the existence of the
privity of contract and the liability of the defendant for the fraudulent
acts of Mr.Ameet Savant, multiple triable issues arise and, therefore, the
defendant is entitled to an unconditional leave to defend the suit,
canvassed Mr. Purohit.
16. Indisputably, a Trading Member and Authorised Person
Agreement, dated 11th December 2014 was executed between the
defendant and Mr. Ameet Savant. Certain clauses of the said agreement
bear upon the controversy at their hand. They read as under :
"1. SCOPE OF THE ACTIVITIES :
The Trading Member and the Authorized Person shall
act as per the requirements specified by SEBI and NSEIL in
its Circulars issued from time to time. The Authorized Person
hereby acknowledge and confirm that the Authorized Person
is entitled to act as a 'Authorised Person' within the meaning
and subject to SEBI Circular MIRSD/DR-1/Cir-16-09, dated
November 06, 2009 and Circulars issued by SEBI and NSEIL
from time to time. The client shall be registered with Trading
Member only. The funds and securities of the clients shall be
settled directly between Trading Member and client and all
documents like contract note, statement of funds and
securities would be issued to client by Trading Member. The
Authorised Person may provide administrative assistance in
procurement of documents and settlement, but shall not
issue any document to client in its own name. No
Shraddha Talekar PS 11/20
12 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
fund/securities of clients shall go to account of the
Authorised Person.
All acts of omission and commission of the Authorised Person
shall be deemed to be of the Trading Member.
2. RESPONSIBILITIES/OBLIGATIONS OF THE
AUTHORISED PERSON :
...........
(d) The Authorized Person shall not receive or pay any
money or securities in its own name or account. All receipts
and payments of securities and funds shall be in the name or
account of Trading Member.
(e) The Authorized Person shall not to issue any
documents like bill, confirmation memo, statement of funds/
securities to the clients in its own name.
(f) The Authorized Person agrees that the Trading
Member and NSEIL would be entitled to establish any other
additional control that it desires to ensure safe and secure
dealing of investors with the Authorized Person.
(g) The Authorized Person shall permit the Trading
Member and NSEIL to conduct the inspection of the branch
where the terminals are located and records of the
operations carried out by the Authorized Person.
3. RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES/OBLIGATIONS OF
THE TRADING MEMBER
(a) The Trading Member shall be responsible for all acts of
omission and commission of the Authorised Person and/or
their employees, including liabilities arising there from.
................."
17. Mr. Tamboly laid special emphasis on the conditions under the
caption, "Scope and Activities" to the effect that all acts of omission and
commission of the Authorised Person shall be deemed to be of the
Trading Member. Reliance was also placed on clause 3(a), which
Shraddha Talekar PS 12/20
13 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
explicitly provides that Trading Member shall be responsible for all acts
of omission and commission of the Authorised Person and/or their
employees, including liabilities arising therefrom.
18. In opposition to this, Mr. Purohit laid stress on clause 2(d) and
2(e), extracted above, which prohibit the authorised person from
receiving or paying any money or securities in his own name or account
and from issuing any documents, bills, confirmation memo, statement of
funds/securities to the clients in its own name. The aforesaid clauses
further provide that all receipts and payments of securities and funds
shall be in the name or account of Trading Member.
19. The aforesaid agreement explicitly provides that the client shall be
registered with Trading Member only. The funds and securities of the
clients shall be settled directly between the Trading Member and client
and all documents like contract note, statement of funds and securities
would be issued to the client by Trading Member. The aforesaid
restriction appear to be in conformity with the circular issued by SEBI
under the title "Regulatory Framework for Market access through
Authorised Persons" in exercise of powers under section 11(1) of the
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
Shraddha Talekar PS 13/20
14 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
20. It is imperative to note that the stated claim of the plaintiffs that
the defendant had invited deposits through its business partner
M/s.Crefin India Management Private Limited does not find support in
the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendant
that M/s. Crefin India Management Private Limited is neither its agent
nor an associate could not be contested. The Welcome Letters (Exh.A to
Exh. A-5) appear to have been issued by Mr.Ameet Savant. Indisputably,
the plaintiffs were not registered with the defendant. Nor the amount
deposited by the plaintiffs has been credited in the account of the
defendant. Apparently, the amount has been credited in the account of
Mr.Ameet Savant which were opened in the name of "Ventura". The
regulations incorporated in the Agreement, dated 11 th December 2014
expressly prohibit the authorised person from receiving any money or
securities in his own name or account.
21. In the aforesaid backdrop, the nature of the underlying
transaction assumes significance. The Welcome Letter, dated 8 th July
2016 (Exh. 'A') reads as under :
"We thank you for your investment of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (One
Crore Thirty Lakhs only) with VENTURA and we assure the
performance of your investment with the following agreed
terms :
The Funds are invested in Index Option Funds
and provides you a guarantee on the capital
invested and also provides you a monthly return
Shraddha Talekar PS 14/20
15 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
of 2%. The returns will be paid on or before 10 th
of every month after completing one month from
date of investment.
..............
Kindly note that Fund will be invested with a lock in period
of 6 months and subsequently will be open for partial and
full withdrawal of principal invested with VENTURA.
Returns will be paid on outstanding amount available with
us. In case of any withdrawal required, request of the same
has to be intimated at the beginning of the month post lock
in period."
22. The nature of the transaction which can be discerned is that the
amount was to be invested in Index Option Funds with a lock-in period
of 6 months. It was open for the investor to withdraw, either fully or
partially, invested amount after the said lock in period. The guarantee on
the return of the capital was thus provided. In addition, a monthly
return of 2 percent was agreed to be paid on or before 10 th of every
month after one month of the date of investment.
23. Evidently, the transaction was in the nature of a fixed return on
the investment @ 24 percent per annum, i.e. 2 percent per month. The
real nature of the transaction thus could not be camouflaged by
providing that there was a guarantee of the return of the principal
amount, as it was invested in the Index Option Funds. It is not the case
of the plaintiffs that they had registered themselves with the defendant.
Nor, the amount was directly invested in the name of the plaintiffs in
Index Option Funds. It is imperative to note that the regulatory
Shraddha Talekar PS 15/20
16 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
authorities frown upon the promise of a fixed return on the investment,
at an unbelievably high rate as it is fraught with the risk of default and
susceptible to fraud. Nor is it the case that the defendant had invited the
public deposits. In contrast, the claim of the plaintiffs that the deposits
were invited through M/s. Crefin India Management Private Limited is
found to be unsustainable. In the circumstances, the submission on
behalf of the defendant that the plaintiffs, who are well acquainted with
financial and money market, were fully aware of the nature of the
transaction they were entering into with Mr. Ameet Savant, cannot be
said to be totally unfounded.
24. The fact that the defendant had raised the grounds of absence of
privity of contract and that no amount was deposited by the plaintiffs
with the defendant in its reply to the demand notice, dated 4 th
September 2019, assumes significance. The subsequent developments in
the nature of the scrutiny of the accounts of the defendant to ascertain
whether the amounts have, in fact, been credited into the account of the
defendant, indicate that there is substance in the defence of the
defendant that no amount has been deposited into its account directly.
25. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to salvage the
position by inviting the attention of the Court to the transactions which
have taken place between the defendant and Mr.Ameet Savant. A table
Shraddha Talekar PS 16/20
17 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
indicating the date and the amount credited into the account of Ventura
(Ameet Savant) and the subsequent transfer of some of the amounts into
the account of the defendant was placed on record. It was submitted
that a substantial part of the amount invested by the plaintiffs came to
be eventually transferred to the account of the defendant. I am afraid to
accede to this submission, at this stage, sans evidence. The question as
to whether the amount which were transferred by Mr.Ameet Savant to
the account of the defendant, represented the very money which the
plaintiffs had invested with Mr.Ameet Savant, is essentially rooted in the
facts and is a matter for trial. At this juncture, it would be hazardous to
draw such an inference on the basis of the money trail which the
plaintiffs want the Court to believe.
26. There is not much controversy over the fact that the prosecution is
initiated against Mr. Ameet Savant. Whether the defendant is liable for
the acts of the authorised person, in the backdrop of the allegations of
fraud, raises a triable issue. The question of liability of the principal for
the fraud committed by the agent, in the context of the nature of the
defence and the material on record, would warrant consideration. It is
not the law that the principal can be held liable for the fraudulent acts
of the agent only when those acts are committed for the benefit of the
principal. Even if the fraudulent acts are perpetrated to advance the
Shraddha Talekar PS 17/20
18 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
personal interest of the agent, the principal can be held liable to account
for provided acts fall within the scope of the authority of the agent. In
the case at hand, the material on record prima-facie indicates that the
agent had no authority to accept the money, pay the money and promise
the return thereof, on his own. In the backdrop of the nature of the
transaction, adverted to above, the question as to whether the acts of
Mr.Ameet Savant were within the scope of the authority is a triable
issue.
27. A useful reference in this context can be made to a judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Rabo
Bank 2, wherein in the backdrop of the defence that the drawer and
drawee of the Bills had perpetrated a fraud on the defendant-Bank, with
the collusion of some officials of the defendant-Bank, the Supreme Court
granted an unconditional leave to defend the suit. The observations in
paragraphs 21 and 22 are material. They read as under :-
"21. In the case on hand, we have perused the material
on record including the FIR dated 9 th August, 1999
registered by the CBI at the instance of Chief Vigilance
Officer, SBH and also the Charge Sheet filed by the CBI.
The charge sheet indicated the involvement of Mr.
Sudhir Behra, Chief Manager of the appellant Bank at
Burra Bazar Branch, Calcutta. Acting at the requests of
representatives from the Indian clients of the
respondent's constituent, the Chief Manager had induced
some officers of the appellant Bank who were In-charge
of Foreign Exchange Department to issue tested telex
2 (2015) 10 SCC 521
Shraddha Talekar PS 18/20
19 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
messages of co-acceptance. The charge sheet further
alleges that these officers were not authorized to issue
such co-acceptances and the motive behind their illegal
and unauthorized action was to enable the constituent of
the respondent to get their bills discounted by
jeopardizing the interests of the appellant Bank. It is also
on record that the trial of the said case was at the stage
of evidence as on 13th November, 2014.
22. Apart from these, the substantial revelations of
the defendant (appellant) in the affidavit coupled with
the views expressed by the Division Bench of the High
Court makes it clear that there are certain triable issues
for adjudication and the defendant/appellant is entitled
to defend the Suit. The appellate side of the High Court
ought to have taken into consideration the factual matrix
of the case before recording its finding. Taking into
consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the opinion that the
defendant/appellant has made out a prima facie case of
triable issues in the Suit which needs to be adjudicated.
Therefore, the defendant is entitled to grant of
unconditional leave to defend the Suit."
28. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the defendant on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Asmi Jewellery India Ltd. Vs.
and the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Sunil Enterprises and Ors. Vs. SBI Commercial and
International Bank Ltd. 4 appears to be well founded.
29. The upshot of the aforesaid consideration is that the defence
raised by the defendant at the first possible opportunity that there was
no privity of contract between the plaintiffs, and no amount was
3 2016(1)Mh.L.J. 395
4 (1998) 5 SCC 354
Shraddha Talekar PS 19/20
20 SJ-74-2019-COMSS-1231-2019 J.doc
invested by the plaintiffs with the defendant and the documents, which
have been relied upon by the plaintiffs to buttress their case of the
contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, were forged appears
to be a fair and reasonable defence, if not a positively good defence.
Thus, the defendant is entitled to an unconditional leave to defend the
suit.
30. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The defendant is granted an unconditional
leave to defend the suit.
(ii) The defendant shall file written statement
Digitally
signed by
Shraddha Shraddha
K. Talekar within a period of six weeks from today.
K. Date:
Talekar 2021.02.23
19:17:22
+0530
(iii) The summons for judgment stands dismissed.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
Shraddha Talekar PS 20/20
