District : South 24 Parganas.
In the Court of the Learned 4th
Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
Money
Suit no. 29 of 2019.
In
the matter of :
Hsieh
Sui Ying, & another,
_________Plaintiffs.
-
Versus –
M/s.
S.K.S. Developer, represented by Proprietor Shri Sujit Saha .
________Defendant.
Written
Statement of Defendant
The Defendant above named states as
follows :
- The
Suit is not maintainable either in facts or in its present form.
- The
Plaintiff has no cause of action for the Suit.
- That
the plaint is speculative, harassing, motivated and barred by the
Principles of law and hence it is
liable to be rejected.
- The
present suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence.
- That save and
except those are admitted herein below all other statements made in the
plaint are not correct and denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof
thereof.
- That
save and except what are the matters of record and what are specifically admitted
by the defendant, all other statements and / or allegations made in the
said Title Suit, shall be deemed to have been denied by the defendant.
- That
as the plaintiff did not cause of any services of the documents relied
upon listed in the contents of the purported plaint, the defendant is not
in any position to put his comments thereon, and therefore reserve his
right to put comments as of necessary on receipt of those listed documents
allegedly relied upon by the plaintiff herein.
- That
it is pertinent to states that in the present Suit, the defendant has
placed several petition and prayer to get those listed documents of the
plaintiff allegedly relied upon in the plaint, has not yet been served and
or supplied to the defendant.
- That
the defendant genuinely apprehend about the authentication of the
documents relied on by the plaintiff, as the same has not been provided
even after petition and prayer before the Learned Court in the present
Suit.
- That
as the plaintiff still failed to provide any copy of the alleged relied on
listed documents in the plaint, the same should not be placed during the
trial in the present suit before the Learned Court, by the plaintiff,
unless the same should be served to the defendant with an opportunity to
controvert the same before the Learned Court in the present Suit, in the
interest of administration of justice.
11.
That the defendant beg to states that
the Petition under objection and or reply is speculative, harassing, motivated
and barred by the Principles of Law and hence it is liable to be rejected at
once.
12.
That the defendant beg to states that
the petition under objection and or reply, is suffering from misjoinder and non
joinder of necessary party in the proceeding, and therefore liable to be
dismissed at once with exemplary costs.
13.
That the defendant beg to states that
the petition under objection or reply, is suffering from suppression of
material facts and necessary party, and therefore liable to be dismissed at
once with exemplary costs.
14.
That the defendant beg to states that
the petition under objection is suffering from any legal demand and thereby
cause of action, and thus the present petition is motivated and without any
jurisdiction.
- At
the outset the Defendant, herein states the following facts for proper
& fair adjudication in the instant suit proceedings :
i)
That one Sri Sanjay Ghatak Son of Late
Gauranga Chandra Ghatak, residing at premises being no. 2/100, Sree Colony,
Kolkata – 700092, Police Station – Netaji Nagar, District – South 24 Parganas
claiming to be an Advocate was looking after and/or acting all the legal
matters on behalf of the defendant, and the said Sanjay Ghatak drafted all the
legal documents for and on behalf of the Defendant and instructed the Defendant
to put his signature on the said documents where the said signature were
required.
ii)
The Defendant put his signature on good faith on
the said drafted documents on the instruction of said Sanjay Ghatak as the said
Sanjay Ghatak claiming him as an advocate and is a legal expert having
knowledge of law and the Defendant had no knowledge of law and having no
knowledge of legal implication of the said documents so prepared by the said
Sanjay Ghatak. The Defendant only put his signature on the documents on good
faith without understanding the meaning as per instruction of Sanjay Ghatak.
iii)
The Defendant had always depends upon the said
Sanjay Ghatak regarding legal matters and on good faith put his signature as
asked for by him, in the documents so prepared by him, and the Defendant had never called any
question why he has to put his signature on the said documents.
iv)
The Defendant states that the said Sanjay Ghatak
also acted on behalf of the Plaintiff, herein, and the Plaintiff had to attend with the said Sanjay
Ghatak for his personal matters and by
such way a good relation has had been
grown up with each other and both of them made a criminal conspiracy in between
themselves and the said Sanjay Ghatak prepared an alleged document to defraud
and/or to cheat the Defendant.
v)
The Defendant states that one alleged document so
prepared by the said Sanjay Ghatak on 27th day of December 2014 and
instructed the Defendant to put his signature on the said alleged documents
where there were no relation with respect to the recital of the property and no
supporting to the documents as mentioned therein in respect of the property morefully described in the given Schedule
thereunder which shows that the Defendant
as the owner of the said Property jointly with other and jointly enjoying the
property with other person.
vi)
The Defendant states that while the Defendant is
not the owner and has no relation with respect to the property as mentioned in the said alleged Agreement
dated 27-12-2014, he cannot enter into
any agreement to sell any alleged Flat and Garage to any person and in the said
alleged agreement it was shown and written in hand writing that a sum of Rs.
20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lakhs ) only, has been received by the Defendant in
cash although the Defendant did never received
such a big an/or huge amount in cash from the Plaintiff and in the said alleged agreement it is shown
a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- received by the Defendant
in Cheque and there were no witnesses in
the said alleged Agreement for Sale. It
is pertinent to mention here that in the said alleged Agreement there was also hand written contents about a sum of Rs.
23,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs
) only, but there was no counter signature of the defendant.
vii)
The Defendant states that there
was a mistake in between the parties as to the matter of fact essential to the
agreement regarding the ownership of the property which was mentioned in the
said Alleged Agreement dated 27-12-2014, so the Defendant had already paid a sum of
Rs. 4,50,000/- to the plaintiff by a cheque bearing No- 195580 and the said
Cheque had already been encashed by the plaintiff on 30-07-2015.
viii)
The Defendant states that the property
as mentioned in the First Schedule in the said alleged Agreement dated
27-12-2014, have no relation with the Defendant and the Flat and Garage as
mentioned in the second Schedule therein is not enforceable in law because
there was a mistake in between the parties as to the matter of fact
essential to the agreement.
ix)
The Defendant states that the schedule
property as mentioned in the said alleged agreement dated 27-12-2014, morefully described in the Schedule
thereunder has no connection with the Defendant and had no right, title and
interest and no Development was entered into with any person who are the legal
owners of the Schedule Property had been illegally prepared by the said Sanjay
Ghatack to deceive and/or to cheat the Defendant in conspiracy with the plaintiff, so there was mistake in between the parties
as to the matter of fact essential part
to the agreement and is not enforceable
in law as a void agreement.
x)
The defendant further states that the defendant
is not the owner of the subjected suit property and have no right, title,
interest and/or possession of the said subjected suit property.
xi)
The Defendant states that by the
strength of the said alleged agreement dated 27-12-2014, the Plaintiff and the
said Sanjay Ghatak, threatening the Defendant to refund the alleged amount of
Rs. 23,00,000/- together with interest and if the Defendant did not refund the
same then the Defendant conjointly kidnap the defendant and get refund of the
said amount and if the defendant unable
to refund then otherwise kill him.
xii)
By the aforesaid illegal acts of the Plaintiff
and the said Sanjay Ghatack, cloud has been casted that they may prejudice the
interest of the Defendant by the strength of the said alleged Agreement dated
27-12-2014, to which said alleged subjected suit property is mentioned so to
remove the same, the Defendant resort
the Civil proceeding before the Learned Competent Civil Court. The said Civil
Proceeding has been registered as Title Suit no. 145 of 2018, ( Sujit Saha –
Versus - Hshieh Sui Ying & another ), pending before the Learned 5th
Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
xiii)
Accordingly the defendant claims for
Declaration that the alleged Agreement dated 27-12-2014, in respect of the suit
property is null and void.
xiv)
The defendant further claims for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance
by the strength of the said alleged agreement dated 27-12-2014.
xv)
That the Defendant is a businessman
and have been running a well known business named M/s. S.K.S. Developer, at
premises being no. E-185, Ramgarh, Police Station – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata –
700047, carrying business activities of Real Estate, and development of Land,
in the state of West Bengal.
xvi)
That one Shri Sanjay Ghatak, Son of
Late Gouranga Chandra Ghatak, residing at premises being no. 2/100, Sree
Colony, Police Station Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700 092, was very known to the Defendant,
as per his representation as an Advocate, and having cordial relation with him,
the Defendant entrusted him, his all necessary legal works such as preparation
of Agreement, Deeds, and others papers in respect of his various project, and
whereas on most of the occasions on good faith very often the Defendant used to
hand over his original papers and documents regards to his landed property and
projects, along with blank stamp papers, blank paper duly signed by the defendant,
for preparation of legal documents.
xvii)
That sometime in the month of
December’ 2013, (1) Hsieh Sui Ying, Son of Hsieh Ying Hsing, residing at
premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, (2) Wu Moi Li,
wife of Hsieh Fong Ying, residing at premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala
Road, Kolkata – 700046, was introduced with the Defendant, by said Sanjay
Ghatak, and Hsieh Sui Ying and Wu Moi Li claimed themselves as a Financer, who
gave a proposal to the defendant, that if required they may provide a lump sum
amount as loan for making new project, to the Defendant, and at the relevant
time, the Defendant, was in need of money for his different project,
accordingly the Defendant agreed and accepted such proposal, on good faith on
said Sanjoy Ghatak.
xviii)
That after assurances and undertaking
of said Sanjay Ghatak, the defendant agreed to take loan amounting to Rs.
20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lakhs ) only, and at the same time, the defendant
requested the said Sanjay Ghatak to prepared all papers in respect of the said
Loan transaction, and whereas on 21-12-2013, while the defendant was in a
restaurant namely at BIG BOSS, those (1) Hsieh Sui Ying, Son of Hsieh Ying
Hsing, residing at premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata –
700046, (2) Wu Moi Li, wife of Hsieh Fong Ying, residing at premises being no.
54C, Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, and (3) Shri Sanjay Ghatak, Son of
Late Gouranga Chandra Ghatak, residing at premises being no. 2/100, Sree
Colony, Police Station Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700 092, persons came to the defendant,
placed one loan agreement, and the said Sanjay Ghatak, asked the defendant, and
to them also for putting our signature thereon, and since the defendant had
have good faith and belief on Sanjay Ghatak, he had put his signature on the
said loan agreement without reading out and understanding the purports and
contents, thereof, those two persons were also given their signature, on asking
of the said Sanjay Ghatak, and also taken signature on company letter head, and
given two cheques of which each of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant, and
whereas the said Sanjay Ghatak taken two blanks cheques signed by the defendant
towards refund of the said loan amount, and whereas all of have taken drink and
dinner together at the said restaurant.
xix)
That subsequently, the said Sanjay
Ghatak, while those cheques has been encashed
in the defendant’s Bank account, asked the defendant for Rs. 5,00,000/-
( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, for his personal need with an assurances that he
will return back to the defendant within a period of six months or on an early
dates, so far, and since then the defendant had have good relationship with
him, the defendant had given him such amount in cash, which he has taken from
the defendant.
xx)
That the said Sanjay Ghatak, did not
refund such money, which has taken by him from the defendant, as of Rs.
5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, within a period of Six months, and
assured the defendant that he will arranged such money by the month of December
2014, and everything will be resolved. The defendant was in belief that the
said Sanjay Ghatak definitely refund the money to the defendant in the month of
December’ 2014, therefore awaiting for such occasions.
xxi)
That in the month of December, 2014,
the said Sanjay Ghatak proposed the defendant that still he was not able to
refund the said money as of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, to the defendant,
however he was in arrangement for some more loan from those two persons, and
consequently, on 27th day of December’ 2014, the said Sanjay Ghatak,
asked me to visit the restaurant BIG BOSS at
premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, at about
8 pm, and whereas the defendant visited the place on good faith and on belief
on the said Sanjay Ghatak, and found that the said Sanjay Ghatak, and Hsieh Sui
Ying, Son of Hsieh Ying Hsing, was there, and whereas the said Sanjay Ghatak,
asked the defendant to put signature on some of the papers allegedly on one
agreement, and also asked the said Hsieh Sui Ying, for signature, and whereas
in belief the defendant had put his signature and the said Hsieh Sui Ying given
one Cheque as of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs ) only, to the defendant,
and thereafter the said Sanjay Ghatak, asked the defendant with his assurance
that the another money as of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Ruppes Two Lakhs ) only, will
arranged very soon, and Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Ruppes Five Lakhs ) only, to be paid
by him to the said Hsieh Sui Ying, in due course, and the plaintiff have to
utilize as of total money of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lakhs ) only for
his project, so far.
xxii)
That it is pertinent to states that
the said Sanjay Ghatak had never given any original or xerox copy of those two
loan agreement, to the defendant, and the defendant did not ask for any copy,
since the defendant had have much faith and belief on him, and thus the defendant
was not in knowledge of the contents and purports of those agreements.
xxiii)
That the said Sanjay Ghatak, did not
arranged for such amount as of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs ) only, to the
defendant, and therefore the amount as of taken at first was Rs. 20,00,000/- (
Rupees Twenty Lakhs ) only, from those two persons, and consequently Rs.
3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs ) only, from Hsieh Sui Ying, total amounting to
Rs. 23,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs ) only, out of which the said
Sanjay Ghatak, has taken as of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, and
thus as of total Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs ) only, was lying with
the defendant, for his project.
xxiv)
That in the month of June’ 2015, while
the Defendant came to know about the dishonor of those two cheques bearing
number 796090, and 796091, from his Bank, the defendant got astonished and
contacted the said Sanjay Ghatak, acknowledging him such facts, and asked him
why such cheques were presented by those persons, without any intimation and
discussions, so far in such respect, then said Sanjay Ghatak, assured the defendant
that he will take care of everything and there is nothing to worry, as because
those persons are his persons.
xxv)
That it is pertinent to states that
the defendant was not in knowledge of the value of the said those cheques,
which has been dishonoures, since those cheques were given blanked with
signature only, on asking of the said Sanjay Ghatak to them.
xxvi)
That subsequently, in the month of
July’ 2015, while the said Hsieh Sui Ying, asked for refund of the money
urgently, the defendant arranged somehow, as of Rs. 4,50,000/- ( Rupees Four
Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only, and paid through Cheque bearing number 195580,
drawn of AXIS Bank Limited, Garia Branch, drawn in favour of said Hsieh Sui
Ying, which he received and duly encashed on presentation with his Bank, and
therefore the total money as of Rs. 13,50,000/- ( Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and
Fifty Thousand ) only, which compelled the circumstances sustaining into
failure of the defendant’s project.
xxvii)
That in the month of February’ 2016,
the said Sanjay Ghatak, asked the defendant for Rs. 11,00,000/- ( Rupees Eleven
Lakhs ) only, towards the need for business setup for his brother, and
therefore the defendant arranged such money in Cash and given to him, in belief
and on good faith on him, and whereas the said Sanjay Ghatak assured the defendant
that such money will be paid to said Hsieh Sui Ying, and the same will be
adjusted out of Rs. 13,50,000/- ( Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand )
only, and thus a total Rs. 2,50,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand )
only, remain to be paid to the said Hsieh Sui Ying.
xxviii) That
thereafter in the year 2016, December month, the said Sanjay Ghatak, shows his
inability to take any legal works, and asked the defendant to appoint some
other lawyer to look after the legal work, on his personal ground of his
engagement at outstation professional work, and therefore the said Sanjay
Ghatak in the mid of July’ 2017, leave the defendant’s legal work, though all
the papers and documents in original and xerox are lying with him.
xxix)
That thereafter in the year 2017, in
the month of October, the defendant received one Letter of the said Hsieh Sui
Ying, through his advocate, viz., letter dated 25-10-2017, and on reading the
purport of the said letter dated 25-10-2017, the defendant got astonished and
fall from the sky, and immediately contacted with the said Sanjay Ghatak, shows
such letter dated 25-10-2017, and asked him for the original agreement, and
then he given the xerox copy of two agreement, wherein the defendant’s
signature and the signature of the said Hsieh Sui Ying is appearing, and the
contents and purports has not been on the facts, thereof.
xxx)
That the said Hsieh Sui Ying,
demanding as of Rs. 43,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Three Lakhs ) only, on the basis
of those manufacture agreement, which has been prepared under the conspiracy of
the said Sanjay Ghatak and the said Hsieh Sui Ying and Wu Moi Li, thereof, and
whereas the facts remain that only Rs. 23,00,000/- has been given by the said
Hsieh Sui Ying and Wu Moi Li, and Rs. 4,50,000/- has been refunded by the defendant
to them and thus only Rs. 18,50,000/- remain to be paid, and whereas the said
Sanjay Ghatak has taken as of Rs. 16,00,000/- from the defendant.
xxxi)
That subsequently, in the month of
January’ 2018, the said Hsieh Sui Ying, lodge a false complaint against the Defendant,
under the connivance of the said Sanjay Ghatak, at Pragati Maidan Police
Station, viz. Pragati Maidan Police Station Case no. 24 of 2018, dated
25-01-2018, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code’
1860, which ended in FRT.
xxxii)
That therefore the defendant came to
realize that the said Hsieh Sui Ying, Wu Moi Li, in connivance with the said
Sanjay Ghatak, have manufactured and prepared a false, forged agreement for
loan and an agreement for Sale dated 27-12-2014, with the defendant’s sign
papers and documents, which the defendant entrusted with the said Sanjay Ghatak
as his Advocate, and thus all of them has committed forgery, used the said
documents as genuine one for the purpose of cheating of the defendant’s money,
on such transaction as of Rs. 23,00,000/-
xxxiii) That
on 15th day of February’ 2018, the Defendant have refunded a further
money as of Rs. 7,00,000/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs ) only, to the said Hsieh Sui
Ying, by a Demand Draft being number “022066” drawn on AXIS Bank Limited, Garia
Branch, from his account, and thus as of Rs. 11,50,000/- remain to pay to the
said Hsieh Sui Ying.
xxxiv) That
it is pertinent to states that the total money taken as of Rs. 23,00,000/- from
the said Hsieh Sui Ying, and Wu Moi Li, and the money paid by the Defendant as
of Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- to Hsieh Sui Ying, and Rs. 5,00,000/- and
Rs. 11,00,000/- given to Sanjay Ghatak, thus a total sum of money has been paid
by the defendant to them is as of Rs. 27,50,000/- and whereas they have cheated
the defendant in such manner.
xxxv)
That it is further pertinent to states
that the said Sanjay Ghatak, is not an Advocate, as he did never obtain any
Degree of LLB from any University, and thus he do not have an enrollment with
the State Bar Council of West Bengal, even though he represented himself as an
Advocate, and on his such representation he used to cheated several persons
including the defendant.
xxxvi) That
these facts has been lodged with the Pragati Maidan Police Station with a
request for appropriate legal action against those persons, in terms of the
prescribed provisions of the Law.
xxxvii)
That the Defendant beg to sates that
there is no privity of contract between the parties, in terms of the facts as
well as in terms of the Law, thereof.
16.
That the present Plaint do not disclose any
cause of action and therefore suffering in such context to have any particular
cause of action, thereof, and thus the present plaint is liable to be rejected
at once with exemplary cost thereof.
17.
That the present plaint does not have
any specified prayer for relief, in terms of prescribed provision of the Civil
Procedure Code, and therefore the present plaint is liable to be rejected at
once with exemplary cost thereof.
18.
That the present plaint at any terms
barred by Limitation in terms of the prescribed provisions of the Limitation
Act’ 1963, and therefore, the present plaint is liable to be rejected at once
with exemplary cost thereof.
19.
That the present plaint is barred by
doctrine of estoppels, therefore, the present plaint is liable to be rejected
at once with exemplary cost thereof.
20.
That the present plaint is mischievous
one and therefore, the present plaint is liable to be rejected at once with
exemplary cost thereof.
21.
That the present plaint purposively
constitute for wrongful gains to be acquire by the plaintiff and therefore, the
present plaint is liable to be rejected at once with exemplary cost thereof.
22.
That without waiving any of the
aforesaid Objections and Facts and fully relying thereupon and without
prejudice to the same. The Defendant, now deals with the specific paragraphs of
the said Plaint in seriatim as hereunder.
- That
the Plaint is not maintainable either in facts or in its present form and
the plaintiff has no cause of action for bringing this suit against the
defendant, as the said plaint is speculative, harassing, motivated,
concocted and baseless as is barred by the Principles of Law and hence
same is liable to be rejected at once.
- Save and except the statements made in
the said plaint which are matter of record, the defendant denies each and
every allegations contained in the said plaint and calls upon the
plaintiff to strict proof of the said allegations.
- That
with references of the paragraph no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, of the
plaint under objection are the matter of partly record and facts and
therefore the defendants re-iterate the paragraph no 15 of this written
statement.
26.
That with the reference paragraph 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the plaint under objection
are specifically line by line in toto are disputed and denied, save and except
those are the matter of record, the plaintiff is put to the strict proof for
the same before the Learned court, the defendant, states that the present suit
have no cause of action to bring it adjudication before the Learned court. The
defendant re-iterate the paragraph no. 15 of this written statement. The
defendant beg to states that on sometime in the month of December’ 2013, (1)
Hsieh Sui Ying, Son of Hsieh Ying Hsing, residing at premises being no. 54C,
Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, (2) Wu Moi Li, wife of Hsieh Fong Ying,
residing at premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, was
introduced with the Defendant, by said Sanjay Ghatak, and Hsieh Sui Ying and Wu
Moi Li claimed themselves as a Financer, who gave a proposal to the defendant,
that if required they may provide a lump sum amount as loan for making new
project, to the Defendant, and at the relevant time, the Defendant, was in need
of money for his different project, accordingly the Defendant agreed and
accepted such proposal, on good faith on said Sanjoy Ghatak, and whereas after
such assurances and undertaking of said Sanjay Ghatak, the defendant agreed to
take loan amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lakhs ) only, and at the
same time, the defendant requested the said Sanjay Ghatak to prepared all
papers in respect of the said Loan transaction, and whereas on 21-12-2013,
while the defendant was in a restaurant namely at BIG BOSS, those (1) Hsieh Sui
Ying, Son of Hsieh Ying Hsing, residing at premises being no. 54C,
Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, (2) Wu Moi Li, wife of Hsieh Fong Ying,
residing at premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala Road, Kolkata – 700046, and
(3) Shri Sanjay Ghatak, Son of Late Gouranga Chandra Ghatak, residing at
premises being no. 2/100, Sree Colony, Police Station Netaji Nagar, Kolkata –
700 092, persons came to the defendant, placed one loan agreement, and the said
Sanjay Ghatak, asked the defendant, and to them also for putting our signature
thereon, and since the defendant had have good faith and belief on Sanjay
Ghatak, he had put his signature on the said loan agreement without reading out
and understanding the purports and contents, thereof, those two persons were
also given their signature, on asking of the said Sanjay Ghatak, and also taken
signature on company letter head, and given two cheques of which each of Rs.
10,00,000/- to the defendant, and whereas the said Sanjay Ghatak taken two
blanks cheques signed by the defendant towards refund of the said loan amount,
and whereas all of have taken drink and dinner together at the said restaurant.
Subsequently, the said Sanjay Ghatak, while those cheques has been encashed in the defendant’s Bank account, asked the
defendant for Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, for his personal need
with an assurances that he will return back to the defendant within a period of
six months or on an early dates, so far, and since then the defendant had have
good relationship with him, the defendant had given him such amount in cash,
which he has taken from the defendant. The said Sanjay Ghatak, did not refund
such money, which has taken by him from the defendant, as of Rs. 5,00,000/- (
Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, within a period of Six months, and assured the
defendant that he will arranged such money by the month of December 2014, and
everything will be resolved. The defendant was in belief that the said Sanjay
Ghatak definitely refund the money to the defendant in the month of December’
2014, therefore awaiting for such occasions. In the month of December, 2014,
the said Sanjay Ghatak proposed the defendant that still he was not able to
refund the said money as of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakhs ) only, to the
defendant, however he was in arrangement for some more loan from those two
persons, and consequently, on 27th day of December’ 2014, the said
Sanjay Ghatak, asked me to visit the restaurant BIG BOSS at premises being no. 54C, Mathgeswartala Road,
Kolkata – 700046, at about 8 pm, and whereas the defendant visited the place on
good faith and on belief on the said Sanjay Ghatak, and found that the said
Sanjay Ghatak, and Hsieh Sui Ying, Son of Hsieh Ying Hsing, was there, and whereas
the said Sanjay Ghatak, asked the defendant to put signature on some of the
papers allegedly on one agreement, and also asked the said Hsieh Sui Ying, for
signature, and whereas in belief the defendant had put his signature and the
said Hsieh Sui Ying given one Cheque as of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs
) only, to the defendant, and thereafter the said Sanjay Ghatak, asked the
defendant with his assurance that the another money as of Rs. 2,00,000/- (
Ruppes Two Lakhs ) only, will arranged very soon, and Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Ruppes
Five Lakhs ) only, to be paid by him to the said Hsieh Sui Ying, in due course,
and the plaintiff have to utilize as of total money of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Rupees
Twenty Lakhs ) only for his project, so far. It is pertinent to states that the
said Sanjay Ghatak had never given any original or xerox copy of those two loan
agreement, to the defendant, and the defendant did not ask for any copy, since
the defendant had have much faith and belief on him, and thus the defendant was
not in knowledge of the contents and purports of those agreements. The said
Sanjay Ghatak, did not arranged for such amount as of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees
Two Lakhs ) only, to the defendant, and therefore the amount as of taken at
first was Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Lakhs ) only, from those two persons,
and consequently Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs ) only, from Hsieh Sui
Ying, total amounting to Rs. 23,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs ) only,
out of which the said Sanjay Ghatak, has taken as of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees
Five Lakhs ) only, and thus as of total Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs
) only, was lying with the defendant, for his project. In the month of June’
2015, while the Defendant came to know about the dishonor of those two cheques
bearing number 796090, and 796091, from his Bank, the defendant got astonished
and contacted the said Sanjay Ghatak, acknowledging him such facts, and asked
him why such cheques were presented by those persons, without any intimation
and discussions, so far in such respect, then said Sanjay Ghatak, assured the
defendant that he will take care of everything and there is nothing to worry,
as because those persons are his
persons. It is pertinent to states that the defendant was not in
knowledge of the value of the said those cheques, which has been dishonoures,
since those cheques were given blanked with signature only, on asking of the
said Sanjay Ghatak to them. Subsequently, in the month of July’ 2015, while the
said Hsieh Sui Ying, asked for refund of the money urgently, the defendant
arranged somehow, as of Rs. 4,50,000/- ( Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand )
only, and paid through Cheque bearing number 195580, drawn of AXIS Bank
Limited, Garia Branch, drawn in favour of said Hsieh Sui Ying, which he
received and duly encashed on presentation with his Bank, and therefore the
total money as of Rs. 13,50,000/- ( Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand )
only, which compelled the circumstances sustaining into failure of the
defendant’s project. In the month of February’ 2016, the said Sanjay Ghatak,
asked the defendant for Rs. 11,00,000/- ( Rupees Eleven Lakhs ) only, towards
the need for business setup for his brother, and therefore the defendant
arranged such money in Cash and given to him, in belief and on good faith on
him, and whereas the said Sanjay Ghatak assured the defendant that such money
will be paid to said Hsieh Sui Ying, and the same will be adjusted out of Rs.
13,50,000/- ( Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only, and thus a total
Rs. 2,50,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand ) only, remain to be paid
to the said Hsieh Sui Ying. Thereafter in the year 2016, December month, the
said Sanjay Ghatak, shows his inability to take any legal works, and asked the
defendant to appoint some other lawyer to look after the legal work, on his
personal ground of his engagement at outstation professional work, and
therefore the said Sanjay Ghatak in the mid of July’ 2017, leave the
defendant’s legal work, though all the papers and documents in original and
xerox are lying with him. In the year 2017, in the month of October, the
defendant received one Letter of the said Hsieh Sui Ying, through his advocate,
viz., letter dated 25-10-2017, and on reading the purport of the said letter
dated 25-10-2017, the defendant got astonished and fall from the sky, and
immediately contacted with the said Sanjay Ghatak, shows such letter dated
25-10-2017, and asked him for the original agreement, and then he given the
xerox copy of two agreement, wherein the defendant’s signature and the
signature of the said Hsieh Sui Ying is appearing, and the contents and
purports has not been on the facts, thereof. The said Hsieh Sui Ying, demanding
as of Rs. 43,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Three Lakhs ) only, on the basis of those
manufacture agreement, which has been prepared under the conspiracy of the said
Sanjay Ghatak and the said Hsieh Sui Ying and Wu Moi Li, thereof, and whereas
the facts remain that only Rs. 23,00,000/- has been given by the said Hsieh Sui
Ying and Wu Moi Li, and Rs. 4,50,000/- has been refunded by the defendant to
them and thus only Rs. 18,50,000/- remain to be paid, and whereas the said
Sanjay Ghatak has taken as of Rs. 16,00,000/- from the defendant. Subsequently,
in the month of January’ 2018, the said Hsieh Sui Ying, lodge a false complaint
against the Defendant, under the connivance of the said Sanjay Ghatak, at
Pragati Maidan Police Station, viz. Pragati Maidan Police Station Case no. 24
of 2018, dated 25-01-2018, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, and 406 of the
Indian Penal Code’ 1860, which ended in FRT. Therefore the defendant came to
realize that the said Hsieh Sui Ying, Wu Moi Li, in connivance with the said
Sanjay Ghatak, have manufactured and prepared a false, forged agreement for
loan and an agreement for Sale dated 27-12-2014, with the defendant’s sign
papers and documents, which the defendant entrusted with the said Sanjay Ghatak
as his Advocate, and thus all of them has committed forgery, used the said
documents as genuine one for the purpose of cheating of the defendant’s money,
on such transaction as of Rs. 23,00,000/-, and on 15th day of
February’ 2018, the Defendant have refunded a further money as of Rs.
7,00,000/- ( Rupees Seven Lakhs ) only, to the said Hsieh Sui Ying, by a Demand
Draft being number “022066” drawn on AXIS Bank Limited, Garia Branch, from his
account, and thus as of Rs. 11,50,000/- remain to pay to the said Hsieh Sui
Ying. It is pertinent to states that the total money taken as of Rs.
23,00,000/- from the said Hsieh Sui Ying, and Wu Moi Li, and the money paid by
the Defendant as of Rs. 4,50,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- to Hsieh Sui Ying, and
Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- given to Sanjay Ghatak, thus a total sum of
money has been paid by the defendant to them is as of Rs. 27,50,000/- and
whereas they have cheated the defendant in such manner. It is further pertinent
to states that the said Sanjay Ghatak, is not an Advocate, as he did never
obtain any Degree of LLB from any University, and thus he do not have an enrollment
with the State Bar Council of West Bengal, even though he represented himself
as an Advocate, and on his such representation he used to cheated several
persons including the defendant, and these facts has been lodged with the
Pragati Maidan Police Station with a request for appropriate legal action
against those persons, in terms of the prescribed provisions of the Law, and thus
the Defendant beg to sates that there is no privity of contract between the
parties, in terms of the facts as well as in terms of the Law, thereof.
27.
That with the reference paragraph 22,
23, 24, 25, and 26 of the plaint under objection are specifically line by line
in toto are disputed and denied, save and except those are the matter of
record, the plaintiff is put to the strict proof for the same before the
Learned court, the defendant, states that the present suit have no cause of
action to bring it adjudication before the Learned court. The defendant
re-iterate the paragraph no. 15 of this written statement.
28.
That the defendant states that the
plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed in the suit.
29.
That the defendant beg to states that
the defendant is not liable to pay to the plaintiff, the alleged claim of the
plaintiff, in terms of the facts as well as in terms of the Law, thereof.
- The
Suit is vexatious, frivolous, harassing, and is liable to be dismissed
with cost.
- The
Suit is barred by the Limitation and not maintainable in it’s present
form.
- The
cause of action for the suit has not arisen in the manner as alleged in
the plaint and the plaintiff cannot be said to have any cause of action
for the suit. In fact, the suit is bad for multi – feriousness of cause of
action.
- The
suit is not properly valued and the court fees paid therein is
insufficient in Law. The verification in support of the plaint is
defective.
- That
the Defendants crave leave to produce the relevant documents as well as
the documents relied upon by the defendant, at the time of hearing.
- The
defendant crave leave to file appropriate application for getting the
copies of the documents which the plaintiff intend to rely upon and only
after getting the copies thereof the defendant may require to file
additional written statement or he may have to amend the written statement
as well.
36.
That the defendant states that the
instant suit is abrasive and without jurisdiction and the same may be dismissed
with exemplary cost.
- That
in the above stated Facts and Circumstances, the Defendant seeks dismissal
of the Plaint with exemplary Costs and others.
- That
this petition being the written statement made bonafide and in the
interest of justice of administration of justice.
It
is therefore prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to accept the
Written Statement of the defendant, herein and make part of the present Suit
record, and further be pleased to dismiss and or reject the plaint of the
plaintiff, at once with exemplary cost thereof, in the interest of
administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders
as your Honour may deem, fit and proper for the end of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the
Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Verification
I, Shri Sujit Saha, being the
defendant, herein in the present Suit, made this Written Statement. I am
conversant and acquainted with the material facts therein. I verify and Sign
this written statement as on ______day of August’ 2019, at the Alipore Judges’
Court premises.
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Sujit Saha, Son of
Late Amar Chandra Saha, aged about _____years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation
Business, residing at premises being no. 521, Payarabagan, Post Office –
Laskarpur, Police Station – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700 153, District – South 24
Parganas, being properitor of M/s. S.K.S. Developer, having its’ place of
business at premises being no. E185, Ramgarh, Police Station Patuli, Kolkata –
700 047, District – South 24 Parganas.
I, the above deponent do hereby
solemnly affirm and says as under :-
1.
That I am the defendant, in the above
Suit / case, thoroughly conversant with the material facts and circumstances of
the present suit and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.
That the statement made in paragraph
no. ______to _______, of my written statement, are true to my knowledge and
belief, and the rests are my humble submission before the Learned Court.
3.
That the facts contained in aforesaid
Written Statement, the contents of which have not been repeated herein for the
sake of brevity may be read as an integral part of this affidavit and are true
and correct to my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
Verification
I, the above named deponent do hereby
solemnly verify that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to
my knowledge, and no part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therein.
Verified this ………….the day of
…………….2019, at Alipore Judges’ Court.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated :……………………2019.
Place : Alipore Judges’ Court.
N O T A R Y
