‘’In the district Court of Saket at New Delhi’’

“Suit No of 2017”

Pulkit Kumar ………………………………………………………………………… Plaintiff

B-9, Amar colony, Lajpat nagar IV
New Delhi,
Versus

Raj India ltd, …………………………………………………………………………Defendant

A-226 Defense colony,
New Delhi

Suit for Recovery of Rs 10,00,000 misappropriated by agent.

Facts of the case are:

The Plaintiff begs to submit as under:

1. That there was a litigation between the plaintiff and his brothers Raj India ltd, which was
referred to the arbitration of the defendant who gave an award under which Rs 10,00,000
were payable by the plaintiff to the brother, vide copy of decree No131, passed on
November 26,2016 the basis of the award in the court of Delhi High Court at Delhi filed
with plaint.
2. That the plaintiff owned Rs 5,00,000to Ashok Lahiri Ltd, on the basis of a hundi dated
2004-2016
3. That the plaintiff remitted Rs10,00,000 to the defendant on January 07,2016 and
instructed him to pay Rs 5,00,000 to the brothers of the Plaintiff under the said award
and to pay Rs5,00,000 to Ashok Lahiri Ltd for the discharge of the hundi.
4. That it has now transpired that the defendant neither paid an amount to Raj India Limited
nor to Ashok Lahiri Ltd, on the other hand the defendant obtained an assignment of the
hundi from Ashok Lahiri Ltd in his own favour and instituted a suit, being No134 of
cheating and criminal misappropriation of goods in the Court of Delhi High Court at
 New Delhi for recovery of the amount under hundi from the plaintiff. At the same time
the Raj India ltd, have filed an application for execution (being No134 of cheating and
criminal misappropriation) in the court of Delhi High Court at New Delhi on December
30th,2016 to recover the said Rs 5,00,000from the plaintiff.
5. That the plaintiff is accordingly entitled to recover the sums of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs
5,00,000 total Rs 10,0,000 from the defendant which had been entrusted to the defendant
as an agent. He was either a middleman or an intermediary on behalf of the plaintiff and
the said sum of money were entrusted to the defendant with the specific direction that it
should be paid in one instance to the brothers and in the others to Ashok Lahiri Ltd.
6. That the above negligent act or misconduct of the defendant came to the notice of
plaintiff when the suit No.134 of cheating and criminal misappropriation an executive
case No 131 of fraud referred to above were instituted.
7. That the cause of action arose on June 18th,2016 when the plaintiff came to know of the
aforesaid negligent act or misconduct of the defendant at. Hence, the court has
jurisdiction.
8. The value of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is Rs 22,15,230 Hence,
the court has jurisdiction.
9. It is therefore prayed that,
(i). The court be pleased to order the respondent to perform his part of the contract by
accepting the remaining payment and conveying the said plot to the plaintiff.
(ii.) The plaintiff be permitted to deposit the balance of consideration in this Hon'ble
Court.
(iii.) The respondent be ordered to pay compensation of Rs 22,15,230 be passed in favour
of the plaintiff against the defendant and costs of the suit which includes mental
harrasment, loss of wages, and cost of this litigation..
Place: New Delhi (Signature of the Plaintiff)
Date: 20-10-2016

Adv. Salman Khan

Advocate

VERIFICATION
I Pulkit Kumar, do hereby solomnly verify that the contents from paras 1,2,3,4,5 are correct
and true to the best of my knowledge and contents from paras 6,7,8,9 are based on legal
advice, which I believe to be correct. Day of Monday, October 20,2016.

(Signature)
Plaintiff
 ‘’In the district Court of Saket at New Delhi’’
“Suit No of 2017”

Pulkit Kumar ………………………………………………………………………… Plaintiff

B-9, Amar colony, Lajpat nagar IV
New Delhi,
Versus

Raj India ltd, …………………………………………………………………………Defendant

A-226 Defense colony,
New Delhi

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VIII,

RULE.1,C.P.C.

The defendant replies as under:

1. The defendant has no knowledge of the avertments made by the plaintiff in para 1 of
the plaint, which are accordingly not admitted.
2. The defendant has no knowledge of avertments made in para 2 of the plaint.
3. The defendant received a cheque for Rs 10,00,000 from the plaintiff but there were no
instructions sent along therewith. The cheque was, however, mislaid and lost, the
defendant never realized any sum under the cheque aforementioned.
4. The hundi, dated 20-04-2016 was endorsed by Ashok Lahiri Ltd in favour of the
defendant for consideration, in respect of which he was entitled to recover the amount
due under the hundi from the plaintiff.
5. Para 5 is denied.
6. Para 6 is not admitted.
7. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit.

Place: New Delhi (Signature of the Defendant)

Date: 20-10-2016
 Adv. Amitabh Bacchan
Advocate

VERIFICATION
I Raj India ltd, do hereby solomnly verify that the contents from paras 1,2,3, are correct and true
to the best of my knowledge and contents from paras 4,5,6,7 are based on legal advice, which I
believe to be correct. Day of Monday, October 20,2016.

(Signature)
Defendant