TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- from the respondent, to be invested with the appellant and his Company. It is submitted that although reliance is placed by the respondent on agreements dated 12.04.2010, 31.03.2011 and 23.08.2012, however, the agreement dated 23.08.2012 was signed by the appellant under coercion, pressure, undue influence, force and threat of filing criminal proceedings. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application seeking leave to defend and passed a decree without taking note of the settled law that the appellant-defendant raised triable issues and thus, the appellant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend. It is further submitted that the amount was invested with the Company and thus, the appellant alone could not have been held responsible for making the payments. Accordingly, the defence raised by the appellant in the application seeking leave to defend is reasonable and plausible and the appellant was entitled to unconditional leave. It is contended that in fact, the appellant has no liability at all. Moreover, the name of the respondent firm was previously known as Ind Cap Finance Services Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, as the name changed, this too ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....320358 Rs. 25,00,000/- 9. 320359 Rs. 25,00,000/- 10. 320360 Rs. 25,00,000/- 11. 320361 Rs. 25,00,000/- 12. 320362 Rs. 25,00,000/- 13. 320363 Rs. 24,54,000/- TOTAL Rs. 3,24,54,000/- . 4. Additionally, it is relevant that the aforesaid 13 cheques were given, post the signing of the second agreement. In fact, Rs. 1 crore was paid by the appellant, which is reflected in the third agreement dated 31.03.2011, styled as Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The sum of Rs. 1 crore was divided in two parts, viz. Rs. 50 lacs was paid to M/s. Indcap Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. & Rs. 50 lacs was paid to Ms. Sonia Chand. The payment was made by four cheques, two in favour of each. Since Rs. 1 Crore had been paid, the MOU reflected a debt of Rs. 2,24,54,000/-. Under the said MOU, 10 post dated cheques were handed over to the respondent and it was mentioned in the MOU that the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in his consistent acknowledgments in writing; acknowledgments having been acted upon; handing over post dated cheques; part payments having been made, can lead to only one conclusion that the appellant owed money to the respondent and admitted his liability and resultantly, the defence sought to be raised is completely sham and moonshine. He submits that the defence sought being raised by the appellant in this Court of coercion, pressure, undue influence and force is completely bogus as no threat, coercion or force can last for a period of 8 years during which four agreements have been signed between the parties. 8. Mr. Bindra, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that though the appellant has extensively raised the defence of signing the agreements under extreme coercion, pressure, undue influence and force, and has reserved his right to take legal action against the respondent, in fact, no legal action has ever been initiated against the respondent. 9. It is also the stand of the respondent that his case is fully covered by a recent decision by the Apex Court in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited 2017 (1) SCC 568, more particu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstantial defence is raised), shall not be granted unless the amount so admitted to be due is deposited by the defendant in court." 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant can be summarised as under: (i) The amount was invested by the respondent with M/s. Integrity Geosciences Pvt. Ltd. (ii) The appellant is not liable to make any payment; (iii) The name of the respondent company has undergone a change more than once; (iv) The agreement dated 23.08.2012 has been signed under coercion, pressure, undue influence and under threat of false cases being filed against the appellant; (v) The appellant had moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein liberty has been granted to the appellant to raise all these grounds at the time of hearing of the petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (vi) The defence raised by the appellant is plausible, reasonable and the appellant has every likelihood of success. Accordingly, u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.04.13 40,00,000/- Fourth 11.07.13 40,00,000/- Fifth and Final 11.10.13 44,00,000/- TOTAL 2,24,00,000/- xxx xxx xxx 11. That the parties hereto confirm that the above settlement has been arrived at by the parties out of their free will and volition and without any force, coercion, influence, inducement, etc." 16. It is relevant to note that in the preamble of this agreement, the background has been given with regard to the appellant and one Shri Arindom Ganguly, having approached the respondent, M/s. Indcap Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. for financial assistance. The preamble also reflects that this company stands amalgamated as M/s. Indcap Enterprises LLP. The preamble also reflects that a sum of Rs. 3,24,54,000/- was invested with M/s. Integrity Geo Sciences Pvt. Ltd. and an agreement dated 29.10.2007 was signed between the parties. Subsequent agreement takes note of the fact that a sum of Rs. 1 Crore stands paid leaving a balance of Rs. 2,24,54,000/- which incidentally is the suit amount. 17. We have, in the paragraphs afore....