Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW010029772024
Civil Suit (Comm.) 195/2024
In the matter of:
1. SMT. KAMLESH
W/O SH. VED PRAKASH
2. SH. VED PRAKASH
S/O LATE SH. DATTA RAM
BOTH R/o D-12/178, SECTOR-7,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
.....Plaintiffs
(Through Sh. Mayank Maini, Advocate)
Versus
1. SH. KAMAL GOEL
S/O SH. R.N. GOEL
2. SMT. RITU GOEL
W/O SH. KAMAL GOEL
3. SH. SANCHIT GOEL
S/O MANOJ GOYAL
ALL THREE R/O H-19/56, BLOCL-H, POCKET-19,
SECTOR-7, ROHINI, NORTH-WEST DELHI,
DELHI-110085
Also At: H. NO. 1457, SECTOR-15, FARIDABAD,
HARYANA-121007
.....Defendants
(Already ex parte vide order dt. 09.08.2024)
Page 1 of 30
-- 1 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
Date of Institution of Suit : 30.03.2024
Date of hearing final arguments : 03.02.2026
Date of judgment : 03.02.2026
Suit for recovery of Rs.1,55,67,200/- (Rupees one crore fifty five lacs sixty
seven thousand two hundred only) inclusive of interest upto date along
with pendente lite and future interest
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit for recovery filed on behalf of plaintiffs against the
defendants, thereby seeking a decree in the sum of Rs.1,55,67,200/-
(Rupees one crore fifty five lacs sixty seven thousand two hundred only)
inclusive of interest upto date along with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are that
defendants No. 1 Sh. Kamal Goel has been known to the Plaintiffs since
past 22 years, being living in the same vicinity i.e., D-12, Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi – 110085. It is further stated that defendants No. 1 mis-represented
and introduced his wife Mrs. Ritu Goel (defendants No. 2) as well as his
nephew namely Mr. Sanchit Goel (defendants No. 3) to the Plaintiffs to be
family-friends and closely related with the Plaintiffs. It has further been
averred by plaintiffs that defendants No. 1 and 2 further mis-represented
themselves to be the absolute and rightful owners of the commercial
property bearing no. D-12/158, Ground Floor, Sector-7, Rohini, North
West Delhi, Delhi-110085, wherein they used to run a toy shop in the name
Page 2 of 30
-- 2 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
and style of “Pick n Play”. It is further stated that due to inducement from
the defendants, the plaintiffs shared with defendants about one of their
property i.e., D-12/ 1, Sector -7, Rohini, Delhi – 110085. It is further stated
that in the month of January 2022, defendants No. 1 and 2 induced
plaintiffs to invest Rs.50,00,000/- in their business plan in Dubai, in lieu of
which defendants would be sharing their profits with the Plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs refused to accept the said proposal/inducement of the defendants.
Thereafter, defendants No.1 and 2 tried to induce plaintiff with another
plan
3. It is further averment of the plaintiff that thereafter, defendants No. 1
and 2 induced her with a new and attractive proposal whereby the
Plaintiffs had to provide to defendants No. 1 and 2 total security amount
of Rs. 40,00,000/- and in lieu of the same, they were proposing to let out
the said property to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff further stated that no monthly rent
or any other charges would be borne by the Plaintiffs. Further, defendants
No. 1 and 2 also told Plaintiffs that this amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- would
be completely refunded to her at the end of tenure and out of the same, on
Rs, 25,00,000/- the defendants No. 1 and 2 would pay no interest to the
Plaintiffs and for Rs. 15,00,000/- the defendants No. 1 and 2 would be
paying an additional interest of 1.5% per month to the Plaintiffs.
4. Plaintiffs showed their incapacity to arrange such a huge amount of
money to defendants No. 1 and 2, to which they induced and tempted the
Plaintiffs by influencing them to liquidate their money by selling their
Page 3 of 30
-- 3 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
property (D-12/1, Sector-7. Rohini, Delhi - 110085) and thereby arranging
the required funds for the defendants No. 1 and 2. Further, they also said
that they would be finding another suitable property for making such
investment.
5. Further, the defendants No. 1 and 2 induced the plaintiff for the
aforesaid scheme and the Plaintiffs accepted their proposal by paying a
token amount of INR 2,50,000/- in the beginning of March 2022 and in
lieu of the same, a security agreement for a tenure of two (2) years
commencing from 01/04/2022 to 31/03/2024 was prepared by defendants
No. 3 and the same was handed over to the Plaintiffs. It is further stated
that Plaintiffs entered into a deal to sell their property (D-12/1, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi 110085) in the month of March 2022 due to the inducement
and influence of the defendants, thereby started to liquidate their lifelong
savings and investment, and made a complete payment of INR 40,00,000/-
to the defendants No. 1 and 2 as per the agreed upon terms, which were
also prescribed in the security agreement, and the defendants No. 1 and 2
handed over the bonafide physical possession of the said property to the
Plaintiffs, and thus, this transaction established a tenant- owner
relationship between the defendants No. 1 and 2 as owners and the
Plaintiffs as the tenants. The details of all the transactions made by the
Plaintiffs to the defendants No. 1 and 2 in lieu of the security agreement is
as follows:
Page 4 of 30
-- 4 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
S.
NO. PARTICULARS MODE DATED AMOUNT(INR
)
1. From Ved Prakash and
Mrs. Kamlesh
(Plaintiffs) to Mr.
Kamal Goel and Mrs.
Mr. Kamal Goel and
Mrs. Ritu Goel
(defendants No. 1 and
2)
(As token money, at
the time of deal)
Cash Starting
of March
2022
2,50,000/-
2. From Mrs. Kamlesh
(Plaintiff No. 1) To
Mr. Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank
Entry
28/03/202
2
11,00,000/-
3. From Mr. Ved Prakash
(Plaintiff No. 2) to Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank
Entry
28/03/202
2
6,50,000/-
4. From Mr. Ved Prakash
and Mrs. Kamal Goel
(Plaintiffs) to Mr.
Kamal Goel and Mrs.
Cash 28/03/202
2
5,00,000/-
Page 5 of 30
-- 5 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
Ritu Goel (defendants
No. 1 and 2)
5. From Mr. Ved Prakash
and Mrs. Kamlesh
Goel (Plaintiffs) to
Mr. Kamal Goel and
Mrs. Ritu Goel
(defendants No. 1 and
2)
Cash 31/03/202
2
12,15,000/-
6. From Mr. Ved Prakash
(Plaintiff No. 2) to Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank
Entry
06/04/202
2
2,10,000/-
7. From Mr. Suhas (Son
of Plaintiffs) to Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank
Transfer
06/04/202
2
75,000/-
TOTAL AMOUNT (INR) PAID TILL HERE 40,00,000/-
6. After almost a month, the defendants No. 1 and 2 approached
Plaintiffs and put forward another attractive proposal to purchase the
said property from them by telling that the Plaintiffs otherwise were
also looking to invest their surplus amount of money that was left
un-invested in some property and further induced the Plaintiffs by
reciting stories and ways in which the said property could benefit the
Page 6 of 30
-- 6 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
Plaintiffs and the number of ways the said property is going to help
Plaintiffs in expanding their business.
7. Defendants No. 1 and 2 further told Plaintiffs that they were in dire
need of money for setting up of their business in Dubai and that they
had to take money along with them urgently and that they had no
other option left but to sell the said property. defendants No. 1 and 2
further told Plaintiffs to hand over vacant possession of the said
property to the rightful future buyer of the said property, if the
Plaintiffs did not pay them money at that very point of time and that
no matter what, the defendants No. 1 and 2 could not be able to
return Plaintiffs’ security amount of INR 40,00,000/- any time
before 31/03/2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs started making
payments to the defendants as the consideration amount, in lieu of
purchasing the said property from the defendants, as and when
demanded by them. The details of all the transactions of May 2022
made by the Plaintiffs (in addition to the INR 40,00,000/- which
were already paid as security amount) to all the defendants as the
consideration amount, in lieu of purchasing the said property is as
follows:
S.
No. PARTICULARS MODE DATED AMOUNT
(INR)
1.
From Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No.
Cash Starting of
May 2022 15,000/-
Page 7 of 30
-- 7 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
1)
2.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh
(Plaintiff No. 1)
To Mr. Kamal
Goel (defendants
No. 1)
Bank
Entry 20/05/2022 8,00,000/-
3.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh
(Plaintiff No. 1)
To Mr. Kamal
Goel (defendants
No. 1)
Bank
Entry 25/05/2022 1,60,000/-
4.
From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 1) to Mr.
Sanchit Goel
(defendants No.
3)
Cash 25/05/2022 7,00,000/-
5.
From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Mr.
Sanchit Goel
(defendants No.
3)
Cash 31/05/2022 13,00,000/-
AMOUNT (INR) PAID IN MAY 2022 29,75,000/-
TOTAL AMOUNT (INR) PAID TILL HERE 69,75,000/-
8. It is further stated that it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs son
Mr. Suhas that the previously executed agreement (the security
agreement) was a defective one and that no written agreement was
executed and signed between the Plaintiffs as buyers, and the
defendants as sellers, the Plaintiffs’ son Mr. Suhas intervened in
between and requested the defendants time and again for getting a
Page 8 of 30
-- 8 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
proper written agreement (Agreement to sell) along with the receipt
of payment by the defendants from the Plaintiffs to be duly signed
and executed in pursuance of the deal and agreed upon terms. But,
the defendants kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the
other by either saying that mother of the defendants No. 2 is very ill
and hospitalized, thus they have to take care of her and couldn't be
able to come up for signing and executing the Agreement to sell and
Payment receipt, or by saying that the defendants No. 1 has gone to
Dubai and he will show up very soon for signing and executing the
Agreement to sell and Payment receipt, or by saying that the
defendants No. 1 has already given receiving of payment on
WhatsApp and that works equally, or by saying that they will
directly transfer the absolute title of ownership over the said
property in the favour of Plaintiffs and that there is no need to sign
and execute any Agreement to sell and Payment receipt.
9. It is further stated that in the month of August 2022, the defendants
No. 2 approached the Plaintiffs and raised a further demand of INR
14,00,000/- to be paid by Plaintiffs in pursuance of purchasing the
said property. The Plaintiffs’ son Mr. Suhas again intervened in
between and denied to make any further payment to the defendants
No. 2 without signing and executing a proper written Agreement to
Sell and Payment Receipt. It is further stated that on 13/08/2022, the
defendants No. 2 again approached her with a photocopy set of the
ownership documents of the said property and a Receipt cum an
Page 9 of 30
-- 9 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
Agreement for Sale/ Transfer of Lease Hold/ Free Hold Rights as
part of Receipt mentioning therein the seller/transferor Mrs. Ritu
Goel (defendants No. 2) W/o Mr. Kamal Goel who received a sum
of INR 83,00,000/- on 13/08/2022 from Mrs. Kamlesh (Plaintiff No.
1) W/o Mr. Ved Prakash as earnest money for sale/ transfer of
property bearing no. 158, Ground Floor, D-12, Sector-7, Rohini,
measuring about 48 sq. meters situated at Rohini, Delhi- 110085 and
the total consideration amount of the said property was prescribed as
INR 1,50,00,000/- out of which only INR 67,00,000/- was left as
unpaid balance. It has further been averred by plaintiff that all this
showed clear signs of defendants’ malafide intentions to defraud the
Plaintiffs as the photocopy of documents pertaining to the said
property which were provided to the Plaintiffs by the defendants No.
2 herself reflected the ownership of the said property in the name of
Mr. Kamal Goel S/o Sh. R.N. Goel i.e. the defendants No. 1,
whereas to the contrary the Receipt cum an Agreement For
Sale/Transfer of Lease Hold/ Free Hold Rights as part of Receipt
was signed by Mrs. Ritu Goel w/o Mr. Kamal Goel i.e. the
defendants No. 2 as the seller/transferor, thereby making the
document as invalid. As the document was invalid, the Plaintiffs
denied to sign the same and make any further payments to the
defendants no. 2. After which the defendants No. 1 called Plaintiffs
from Dubai and talked about the critical condition he was suffering
from. The defendants No. 2 assured the Plaintiffs that he will get all
the documents signed and executed as per the law as soon as he
Page 10 of 30
-- 10 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
lands to India and further requested the Plaintiffs to release further
payment as the consideration amount and handover the same to the
defendants No. 2 and 3 in his absence. It is further stated that
Plaintiffs believed the defendants and made few more transactions
with the defendants in pursuance of purchasing the said property.
10. The details of all the transactions of August 2022 made by the
Plaintiffs (in addition to the INR 69,75,000/- which were already
paid) to all the defendants as the consideration amount, in lieu of
purchasing the said property is as follows:
S.
NO PARTICULARS MODE DATED AMOUNT
(INR)
1.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh
(Plaintiff No. 1)
To Mr. Kamal
Goel (defendants
No. 1)
Bank
Entry 16/08/2022 1,00,000/-
2.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh and
Mr. Ved Prakash
(Plaintiffs) to
Mr. Ritu Goel
and Mr. Sanchit
Goel (defendants
Cash 16/08/2022 8,00,000/-
Page 11 of 30
-- 11 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
No. 2 and 3)
3.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh
(Plaintiff No. 1)
To Mr. Kamal
Goel (defendants
No. 1)
Bank
Entry 16/08/2022 1,00,000/-
4.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh and
Mr. Ved Prakash
(Plaintiffs) to
Mrs. Ritu Goel
and Mr. Sanchit
Goel (defendants
No. 2 and 3)
Cash 18/08/2022 3,25,000/-
AMOUNT (INR) PAID IN MAY 2022 13,25,000/-
TOTAL AMOUNT (INR) PAID TILL HERE 83,00,000/-
Page 12 of 30
-- 12 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
11. It is further stated that in the month of September 2022, the
defendants No. 1 and 2 approached and asked the Plaintiffs to make
further payment to the defendants by introducing a new fact that the
said property is mortgaged against a Bank Loan which the
defendants No. 1 and 2 have taken few years back. They told the
Plaintiffs that there is a Bank Loan on the said property sanctioned
by TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
(hereinafter referred as Bank), vide Loan Account No.
TCFLA0359000011100446//20778000 and that the same was
required to be repaid first as the original documents pertaining to the
said property lies with the Bank itself. defendants further told the
Plaintiffs that they have consulted the Lawyer and the Bank officials
and it is only after the repayment of the complete loan amount that
the original documents pertaining to the said property could be
released from the Bank and after that only the said property could be
transferred in the name/favour of the Plaintiffs. The defendants
Page 13 of 30
S.
NO.
PARTICULARS MODE DATED AMOUNT(INR)
1. From Mr. Ved
Prakash
(Plaintiff No. 2)
to Loan Account
of Mr. Kamal
Goel
(defendants No.
1)
Bank
Entry
26/09/2022 49,000/-
-- 13 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
It is further stated that in the month of September 2022, the defendants
No. 1 and 2 approached and asked the Plaintiffs to make further
payment to the defendants by introducing a new fact that the said
property is mortgaged against a Bank Loan which the defendants
Page 14 of 30
2.
From Mr. Ved
Prakash
(Plaintiff No. 2)
to Loan account
of Mr. Kamal
Goel
(defendants No.
1)
Bank
Entry 26/09/2022 41,000/-
3.
From Mrs.
Kamlesh
(Plaintiff No. 1)
To Mr. Kamal
Goel
(defendants No.
1)
Bank
Entry 27/09/2022 1,10,000/-
4.
From Mr. Ved
Prakash
(Plaintiff No. 1)
to Mr. Kamal
Goel
(defendants No.
1)
Bank
Entry 28/09/2022 4,12,000/-
AMOUNT (INR) PAID IN MAY 2022 6,12,000/-
TOTAL AMOUNT (INR) PAID TILL HERE 89,12,000/-
-- 14 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
No. 1 and 2 have taken few years back. They told the Plaintiffs that
there is a Bank Loan on the said property sanctioned by TATA
CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED (hereinafter referred
as Bank), vide Loan Account No.
TCFLA0359000011100446//20778000 and that the same was
required to be repaid first as the original documents pertaining to the
said property lies with the Bank itself. defendants further told the
Plaintiffs that they have consulted the Lawyer and the Bank officials
and it is only after the repayment of the complete loan amount that
the original documents pertaining to the said property could be
released from the Bank and after that only the said property could be
transferred in the name/favour of the Plaintiffs. The defendants
further told the plaintiffs that they had no liquid money left with
them to repay the Bank Loan, and that the Plaintiffs would have to
take up the responsibility of further payment of their legal liability
towards the Bank by making payment for the unpaid EMIs of the
Bank Loan on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2.Since the
Plaintiffs had already made payment of INR 83,00,000/- to the
defendants, they told the defendants that they won't be able to make
any further payment to them until any written document/agreement
was signed and executed in this behalf between the Plaintiffs and the
defendants (Mr. Kamal Goel, his wife Mrs. Ritu Goel and his
nephew Mr. Sanchit Goel). It has further been averred by plaintiffs
that defendants extorted money from them by blackmailing them
that either pay them money as per their demands or forget about
Page 15 of 30
-- 15 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
both the aforesaid properties and the money which Plaintiffs had
already paid to the defendants for purchasing the said property
completely. It has further been averred that on repeated requests, the
defendants agreed to sign and execute an Agreement To Sell but
only on a condition that Plaintiffs would pay EMIs to the Bank on
behalf of the defendants until 20th March 2023 (date decided by
defendants for executing the sale deed and transfer the absolute
ownership rights pertaining to the said property in name/favour of
the Plaintiffs) and further to pay money as and when demanded by
either of the defendants and that the same shall be adjusted at the
time of execution of sale deed with the total consideration amount of
the said property i.e., INR 1,40,00,000/-, and that if any exceeds the
total consideration amount of the said property i.e., INR
1,40,00,000/ shall be repaid to the Plaintiffs by defendants No. 1
himself on or before 20 March 2023. It is further stated that all the
defendants promised and gave all the assurances to the Plaintiffs that
they will anyhow repay the complete Bank Loan before 20 March
2023 so that the original documents pertaining to the said property
could be released from the Bank and the sale deed pertaining to the
said property could be registered in name of the Plaintiffs on 20
March 2023 itself. The details of all the transactions of September
2022 made by the Plaintiffs (in addition to the INR 83,00,000/-
which were already paid) to the defendants as the consideration
amount, in lieu of purchasing the said property is as follows:
Sl. Particulars Mode Dated Amount (in
Page 16 of 30
-- 16 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
No. Rs)
1. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
Account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 13/10/2022 40,000/-
2. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 13/10/2022 28,000/-
3. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 30/10/2022 11000/-
4. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
Bank Entry 29/11/2022 49,000/-
Page 17 of 30
-- 17 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
(defendants No. 1)
5. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 29/11/2022 40,000/-
6. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 18/12/2022 49,000/-
7. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 18/12/2022 40,000/-
8. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
Bank Entry 13/01/2023 49,000/-
Page 18 of 30
-- 18 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
(defendants No. 1)
9. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 13/01/2023 40,000/-
10. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 11/02/2023 49,000/-
11. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No. 1)
Bank Entry 11/02/2023 40,000/-
12. From Mr. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No. 2) to Loan
account of Mr.
Kamal Goel
Bank Entry 16/03/2023 40,000/-
Page 19 of 30
-- 19 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
(defendants No. 1)
AMOUNT (INR) PAID IN MAY 2022 4,75,000/-
TOTAL AMOUNT (INR) PAID TILL HERE 93,87,000/-
13. Further, till 20th March 2023, i.e., the date fixed by the defendants
for the absolute transfer of ownership of the said property in
name/favour of the Plaintiffs and the registration of sale deed in
pursuance of the same, the Plaintiffs were under a belief the
defendants would have settled the Bank Loan pertaining to the said
property and the original property documents would have been
released from the Bank. But to the contrary, the defendants left the
Plaintiffs high and dry as the defendants had no intention to repay
the Bank Loan and only wanted to extort money from the Plaintiffs.
It is further stated that defendants kept on inducing the Plaintiffs to
release further payment by giving the bait of the said property. That
the Plaintiffs were not stable enough to bear such a huge loss of INR
93,87,000/- and the defendants took the advantage of vulnerability
of the Plaintiffs and pressurized the Plaintiffs to such an extent that
they had no option left but to close this deal to its end. It is further
stated that Plaintiffs had a meeting with the defendants when they
told Plaintiffs that they would make full and final payment of
consideration amount and defendants would repay and settle the
Bank Loan by themselves. The defendants even told that once the
Plaintiffs provide them the balance amount, they will make sure that
Page 20 of 30
-- 20 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
the whole process of getting the documents pertaining to the said
property released from the Bank and further get the sale deed
pertaining to the said property registered in name/favour of the
Plaintiffs. The details of all the transactions from 23rd March 2023
till date made by the Plaintiffs (in addition to the INR 93,87,000/-
which were already paid to the defendants as the consideration
amount, in lieu of purchasing the said property is as follows:-
Sl.
No.
Particulars Mode Dated Amount
(INR)
1. From Sh. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No.2) to Sh.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No.1)
cash 23.03.2023 11,00,000/-
2. From Sh. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No.2) to Sh.
Sanchit Goel
(defendants No.3)
Bank entry 27.03.2023 2,00,000/-
3. From Sh. Ved
Prakash and Mrs.
Kamlesh
(Plaintiffs) to Sh.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No.1)
cash 08.04.2023 13,00,000/-
4. From Sh. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No.2) to Sh.
Kamal Goel and
Mrs. Ritu Goel
(defendants No.1
cash 17.04.2023 9,15,000/-
Page 21 of 30
-- 21 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
and 2)
5. From Sh. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No.2) to Sh.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No.1)
cash 01.05.2023 5,50,000/-
6. From Sh. Ved
Prakash (Plaintiff
No.2) to Sh.
Kamal Goel
(defendants No.1)
cash 07.05.2023 7,00,000/-
Amount paid in May,
2022
47,65,000/-
Total amount paid 1,41,52,000/-
14. It is further stated that after making complete payment of
consideration amount to the defendants for purchasing the said
property, the plaintiffs requested the defendants by joining their
hands to expedite the process and close this deal for once and all. It
has further been averred that defendants never asked plaintiffs to
make any payment for the EMIs in the month of April or May, thus
they were under the belief that defendants were making payment to
discharge their liability and soon the property in question would be
transferred in the name of plaintiff(s).
15. It has further been averred that thereafter, plaintiff approached the
Legal Services Authority, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
for pre-institution mediation but defendants did not appear there and
accordingly, Non-Starter Report dated 11.03.2024 was issued in this
Page 22 of 30
-- 22 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
regard.
16. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit, thereby invoking the
provisions of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
17. After filing of the suit, summons for settlement of issues were issued
against the defendant vide order dated 30.03.2024. The defendants
were served and despite repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of
the defendants. Accordingly, defendants were proceeded “ex-parte”
vide order dated 09.08.2024 and the matter was notified for ex-parte
PE.
18. The plaintiffs during the course of ex-parte evidence examined
Sh.Ved Prakash as PW1. PW1 in his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and has
relied upon the following documents :-
Sl.
No.
Document(s) Ex.
1 Original SPA dt. 23.02.2024 in favour of
PW1
Ex.PW1/1
2 Printout of GST registration certificate of
the shop along with its photographs
Ex.PW1/2 colly.
3 Security agreement dt. 01.04.2022 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR)
4 Original Receipts dt. 09.08.2023 and
14.08.2023 in favour of plaintiff No.1
qua the property in question
Ex.PW1/4 colly.
5 Receipt cum Agreement for sale/transfer Ex.PW1/5 (OSR)
Page 23 of 30
-- 23 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
of lease hold/freehold rights dt.
13.08.2022 executed by defendant No.2
6 Agreement cum receipt of advance dt.
28.09.2022
Ex.PW1/6 (OSR)
7 Certified copy from HDFC &n PNB
Bank of bank statement of PW1
Ex.PW1/7 colly.
8 Certified copies from ICICI Bank of
bank statements of plaintiff No.1
Ex.PW1/8 colly.
9 Certified copies from ICICI Bank of
bank statements of son of PW1 and
plaintiff No.1
Ex.PW1/9 colly.
10 Possession Notice dt. 19.08.2023 from
TATA Capital Financial Services Ltd.
Ex.PW1/10 (OSR)
11 Copies of cheques and their returning
memos
Mark-PW1/11 colly.
12 Copy of legal notice dt. 06.01.2024 Ex.PW1/12
13 Original postal receipts and tracking
report
Ex.PW1/13 colly.
14 Report from DLSA, NW dt. 11.03.2024 Ex.PW1/14
15 Affidavit u/o 11, Rule 6 Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and Section 65B IE Act,
1872
Ex.PW1/15
16 Certified copy of Receiver’s report along
with documents/order
Ex.PW1/16 colly.
19. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.10.2024, ex-parte PE in the matter
was closed.
20. I have heard Sh. Mayank Maini, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and
perused the entire material on record.
Page 24 of 30
-- 24 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
21. The plaintiffs filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,55,67,200/-,
however vide statement dated 20.09.2025, the plaintiffs confined the
suit amount 1,22,00,000/- which is the cumulative amount of the
four cheques in question.
22. Plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Judgment dt. 18.07.2017 of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in RFA No. 631/2017, titled as SMT. DIMPLE
BHALLA Vs. SH. GAURAV SINGH, the relevant para is
reproduced as under:-
“xxxx
9. Once the appellant/defendant is
proceeded ex-parte, she leads no evidence,
and respondent/plaintiff proves his case by
leading evidence, then no fault can be found
with the impugned judgment and decree
decreeing the suit. The relevant paras of the
judgment dated 11.9.2014 of the trial court
holding that the respondent/plaintiff proved
his case are paras 4 to 6. For the sake of
clarification it is stated that paras 4 and 5
are serially repeated in the impugned
judgment and 2017:DHC:3632 RFA No.
631/2017 Page 5 of 7 hence reference is
made to these repeated paras, which paras
read as under:-
“4. Ex.PW1/A is cheque no.
947550 dated 05.02.2011 payable
in favour of the plaintiff for
Rs.3,96,000/-drawn by defendant
Page 25 of 30
-- 25 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
on HDFC Bank Ltd., 19, Kasturba
Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C are the
Cheque Returning Memo dated
5.2.2011 and 5.3.2011 respectively
pertaining to the said cheque for
the reason “funds insufficient”.
Ex.PW-4/A is the copy of the
statement of account of SB
Account No.13322150002810 of
the plaintiff issued by Oriental
Bank of Commerce, Shivaji
Enclave, Delhi which reflect that a
cheque no. 36079 for
Rs.1,15,000/- was debited to Ms.
Dimple (defendant) on 3.11.2009
Ex.PW5/A is the copy of the
statement of account of SB
Account No.037801510514 of the
plaintiff issued by ICICI Bank
Ltd., Vishal Enclave, Delhi which
shows that a cheque no. 529584
for Rs.35,000/- was debited on 4th
November, 2009 to Ms. Dimple
Bhalla (defendant). Ex.PW3/A is
the copy of the statement of
account of SB A/c of the plaintiff
with Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Shivaji Enclave, Delhi and it
reflects that a cheque of
Rs.3,96,000/- was deposited by the
plaintiff on 7.3.2011 which was
returned unpaid because of “funds
insufficient” on the same day.
Ex.PW-2/B is the copy of the
statement of account of SB A/c of
defendant with HDFC Bank Ltd.
Which reflect that a cheque issued
Page 26 of 30
-- 26 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
by her in the name of Gaurav
Singh (Plaintiff) for Rs.3,96,000/-
was dishonored on 07.03.2011.
Ex.PW-1/F is the copy of legal
notice dated 18.03.2011 which
plaintiff got issued through his
counsel Sh. Vijay Singhal,
Advocate to the defendant.
Ex.PW-1/G is the copy of reply
dated 1.4.2011 sent by the
defendant through her counsel to
the defendant. 5. PW-1 Sh. Gaurav
Singh (Plaintiff) has deposed all
the facts in the affidavit
Ex.PW-1/1 which he pleaded in
the plaint. PW-2 Sh. Aman Tiwari,
asstt. Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd.
Stated that the cheque no. 947550
for Rs.3,96,000/- issued by the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff
was dishonored twice i.e on
07.02.2011 and 07.03.2011 due to
insufficient funds. PW-3 Sh. Amit
Chaudhary, Single Window
Operator, Oriental Bank of
Commerce also stated that cheque
of Rs. 3,96,000/- issued by the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff
was dishonored due to insufficient
funds twice on 7.2.2011 and
7.3.2011. 6. The issuance of the
cheque in question is not disputed
by the defendant and she has
merely pleaded that the plaintiff
has taken signed cheque books of
the defendant on the basis of false
promises and assurances.
However, she got herself
Page 27 of 30
-- 27 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
proceeded ex-parte after partly
cross examining the plaintiff (Sh.
Gaurav Singh) while appearing as
PW-1. The evidence adduced by
the plaintiff went unrebutted and
unchallenged. The defendant has
neither cross examined the
plaintiff nor his witnesses. She has
also not 2017:DHC:3632 RFA No.
631/2017 Page 6 of 7 turned up in
the witness box to prove her
defence. The defendant has issued
to plaintiff a cheque of
Rs.3,96,000/-, Ex.PW1/A which
has dishonored for insufficient
funds. Under section 18 and 139
of Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881, there is presumption that the
cheque has been issued by the
defendant for consideration.
Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff
is hereby decreed for recovery of
Rs.3,96,000/- with proportions
cost against the defendant. He
would also be entitled to interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of suit till realization of the
decreetal amount. Decree Sheet be
prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to record room.
xxxx”
2. Judgment dt. 28.11.2011 in C.S. (OS). No.2248/2007 M/S
ECOLAB INC VS. EACO LABS LTD, the relevant para is
reproduced as under:-
“xxxx
Page 28 of 30
-- 28 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
34. Since the plaintiff’s evidence has gone
unrebutted as the defendant has also failed
to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff,
the evidence filed by the plaintiff is liable to
be taken as correct. The defendant, on the
other hand, has failed to produce any
evidence in support of its claim.
xxx”
23. From the perusal of record, it is clearly evident that defendants had
approached the plaintiffs for business purpose. The execution of
necessary/requisite documents between the parties in this regard has
been duly proved on record by plaintiffs.
24. The defendants being ex-parte, the testimony of the plaintiff's
witness has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing
on record to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff's
witness or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents
exhibited and proved on record.
25. From the unrebutted testimony of PW1 in the matter and the
documents proved by it on record, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs
have been able to make out a good case for passing of decree in their
favour. As regards the quantum of interest, the transaction between
the parties being commercial in nature, I am of the considered
opinion that interest @ 12% per annum would meet the ends of
justice.
Page 29 of 30
-- 29 of 30 --
CS (Comm) 195/2024 Kamlesh and Anr. Vs. Kamal Goel and Ors.
26. (i) In view of the above, since the plaintiffs have confined their
claim to the amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/-, a decree in the aforesaid
sum along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of
the suit till recovery till recovery is passed in favour of plaintiffs
and against the defendants.
(ii) Plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit. Plaintiffs are further
entitled to counsel’s fee which is quantified as Rs.1,00,000/-.
27. .Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly, subject to payment of requisite
court fees, if any.
28. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary
formalities.
Dictated and Announced in the
open Court on 03.02.2026.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts
Page 30 of 30
-- 30 of 30 --