Reva Khetrapal, J.@mdashThe present suit has been filed under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the CPC by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty lacs only) along with pendente lite & future interest premised on two post dated cheques issued by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants represented themselves as reputed investment consultants and induced the plaintiff to make following investments with defendants:
(i) Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lacs only) vide cheque No. 610670 dated 30.12.2010 drawn on State Bank of India, Shivaji Nagar, Gurgaon.
(ii) Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) vide DD No. 119622 dated 31.01.2011 drawn on Axis Bank, Sector 14, Gurgaon.
2. On the aforesaid investments, the plaintiff was assured a return of 20% per month for a period of six months and in the seventh month, the principal amount was to be returned to the plaintiff. To ensure the payment, the defendants issued the following two post dated cheques both drawn on HDFC Bank, Dwarka Branch, Account No. 02498630000147 to the plaintiff:
(i) Cheque bearing No. 705652 dated 01.08.2011 for Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lacs only);
(ii) Cheque bearing No. 700301 dated 07.09.2011 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one core only).
In addition, the defendant No. 2 also executed, two Guarantees/Promissory Notes dated 30.12.2010 and 31.01.2011 as absolute, unconditional and irrevocable guarantee for the payment of the aforesaid amounts.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he never received any return on his investments with the defendants and when he tried to approach the defendants at their Delhi office, he found that the office was closed and the telephone numbers of the defendants were also not available. It then transpired that the defendants had been working under a pre-planned conspiracy to cheat public-at-large and had aired their advertisements on internet, and through periodically conducted seminars, so as to gain the trust of public-at-large. Plaintiff also discovered that the bank account of the defendants on which the post dated cheques were issued, had been seized by the police even before the issuance of aforesaid cheques. Plaintiff also met other individuals who had been cheated and duped by the defendants and came to know that the police had registered FIR bearing No. 84/2011, against the defendants and that the case was thereafter transferred to the Economic Offences Wing, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On 16.06.2011, the plaintiff served a legal notice on the defendants, terminating the agreement on account of fraud committed by the defendants and called upon the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the assured monthly return and the principal sum invested.
4. The cheques issued by the defendants dated 01.08.2011 and 07.09.2011, on being presented to the Bank, were returned unpaid with the remark: ''Account Blocked'' and the plaintiff also received the Return Memo from his bank dated 12.09.2011. The plaintiff has filed on record both the aforesaid cheques issued by the defendants in original, the original pay-in-slips showing deposit of the aforesaid two cheques, original Return Memos, as well as original Secured Promissory Notes executed by the defendant No. 2.
5. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants on 22.11.2011 and again on 02.12.2011. Summons issued to the defendant No. 1 were received back unserved with the report that defendant No. 1-Company is not existing at the given address, which is lying locked. Summons issued to the defendant No. 2 were received back unserved with the report that premises had been sealed by the CBI. In the circumstances, the plaintiff was permitted to serve the defendants by way of publication in the newspaper ''The Statesman'', Delhi edition. The defendants were thus served by publication in the Delhi edition of ''The Statesman'' dated 20.03.2012. Citation has been placed on record by the plaintiff. Despite publication of citation, no appearance has been entered by the defendants till date. Thus, as per Rule 2 sub-Rule 3 of Order XXXVII, the allegations made in the plaint must be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff held entitled to a decree for the sum mentioned in the summons. In view of the aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants Nos.1 and 2. The defendants are held jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and sixty lakhs only) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of payment. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 within eight weeks, failing which the defendants shall be liable to pay interest @ 20% per annum till the date of payment.
CS (OS) No. 2866/2011 stands disposed of in the above terms. Plaintiff shall be entitled to costs as calculated by the Registry.
