Written Statement

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SH. SUMEET SURI …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. ANILJIT SINGH & ANR. …DEFENDANTS
INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.
1. Written Statement on behalf of Defendant No. 1 and 2
alongwth supporting Affidavit to the Amended Plaint.
2. Application under Section 151 C.P.C. for condonation of
delay of 27 days in filing of the Written Statement
alongwith Affidavit.
4. VAKALATNAMA
DEFENDANT NOS. 1 & 2

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)
ASEEM ATWAL & KARTAVYA BATRA,

ADVOCATES, RK CHAMBERS
D-11, UGF, JUNGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-14.
D-906/2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 AND

2 TO THE AMENDED PLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:-
1. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the same is

false, frivolous and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
2. That the plaintiff has deliberately and mischievously withheld material

facts and documents and has instead instituted a manifestly baseless
and concocted factual matrix in an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble
Court. The plaintiff herein is thus guilty not only suppression vari but
also of suggestio falsi and accordingly deserves to be non-suited
immediately on this pretext alone.
3. That the present action is neither maintainable in equity nor in law and
is nothing short of a gross mischief and a baseless attempt at
approaching this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. The instant suit is
barred in law as well as by limitation, since it has been filed beyond the
limitation of three years from the date of the execution of the said
purported MOU, i.e. 29.08.2008. Furthermore, it is pertinent to
mention that all the concerned cheques were also issued on the same
date. That the said MoU has been obtained by way of fraud by the
Plaintiff by not disclosing material facts and concealing records from
the Defendants and as such, fraud vitiates such documents being non-
est and void-ab-initio and not legally enforceable under law.
4. That the captioned proceedings are blatant and gross abuse of process
established by law. The plaintiff has manifestly attempted to mislead
this Hon’ble Court by instituting the present counterblast civil suit
thereby giving the various criminal cases instituted by the defendants
pending against him and where the Plaintiff is already charged, the
colour of civil proceedings.
5. That the present action is bereft of any merits and in any case, it does
not disclose any cause of action (let alone a viable one) either in law or
in facts. The present action must fail being hit by the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The present action is
without causa causans and liable to be rejected at the threshold.
6. That the defendants submits that the present written statement is

being presented before this Hon'ble Court without prejudice to their
right to institute such other and/or further actions against the plaintiff
herein.
7. It is submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed and concealed the fact
that there are multiple criminal cases pending against the plaintiff in
the courts of Delhi and Noida related to the real controversy in
question. In this regard, it is specifically submitted that in one of the
criminal cases against the Plaintiff having FIR No. 125/2010 registered
at P.S. EOW under Section 420/468/471 of the IPC titled as ‘State Vs.
Sumeet Suri & Ors.’, the Ld. CMM was pleased to frame the charges
under Section 420/468/471 of IPC against the Plaintiff and the same
has been upheld by the Revisional Court, considering the mischievous
and unwarranted acts of the plaintiff before entering into the alleged
mutual understanding vide the alleged MOU dated 29.08.2008.
8. It is submitted that during the course of investigation in the

abovementioned criminal proceeding, an appropriate audit was
conducted by the competent Chartered Accountant wherein it was
revealed that the Plaintiff in connivance with his accomplices and his
associates hatched a conspiracy to divert the finished garments
belonging to the Defendant No. 2 and siphoning off of the funds by
committing forgery thereby causing huge loss to both the Defendants
No. 1 & 2.
9. It is furthermore submitted that the criminal conspiracy of the Plaintiff

is also reflected in the records of Assessment Proceedings initiated by
the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Department against the Defendant No. 2.
The aforesaid Assessment Proceedings had been initiated against the
Defendant No. 2 because the Plaintiff had fraudulently applied for the
sales tax returns of the Defendant No. 2 to the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax
Department without the mandatory Board Resolution and by
fraudulently presenting his accomplices and associates namely, Sajjal
Khanna, Raina Suri & Chander Mohan as Executive and Production
Manager of Defendant No. 2, despite the fact that Sajjal Khanna, Raina
Suri & Chander Mohan had never even been on the payroll of the
Defendant No. 2 Company.
10. From the abovementioned, it is manifestly clear that the Plaintiff had
fraudulently diverted finished garments belonging to Defendant No. 2

by showing the stock transfer, however, the corresponding Form 'F'
and Form 'C' for sales were not submitted to the State Sales Tax
Department, and hence, by adopting such mode and manner, the
Plaintiff claimed the fraudulent return of the goods without any proof
of return of goods. The proof of return of sold goods were not
submitted by the Plaintiff since no goods were returned and the actual
sale proceeds were diverted by the plaintiff for his own benefit.
11. That vide the said investigation and the subsequent scrutiny of the
records of the Defendant No. 2 by the concerned CA and the following

Audits as well as the internal scrutiny of the Defendant No. 1, various
acts of defrauding, misdeed, deception & misappropriation were found
against the Plaintiff post the execution of the alleged MOU dated
29.08.2008. The investigation manifestly revealed the diversion of
funds by the Plaintiff owing to the transfer of the huge amount of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- in favour of the company of his co-conspirator &
associate namely Mr. Sajjal Khanna. Moreover, the plaintiff had also
illegally diverted funds in the name of his wife namely Raina Suri by
issuing various cheques allegedly for the payment of her insurance
premium and instalments against the property situated in Noida
under the garb of the mischievous plea that the wife of the plaintiff
was the Commission Agent of the Defendant No. 2.
12. It is also emphatically submitted herein that in order to justify the
transfer of stock of garments belonging to Defendant No. 2 in favour of

Plaintiff’s own company namely M/s. Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt.
Ltd., the plaintiff had submitted a fake `C & F' agreement in favour of
his own company M/s. Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. showing as
if it was issued by Defendant No. 2, whereas no such `C & F' agreement
was ever authorized by Defendant no. 1 in his Directorial capacity of
Defendant No. 2 or by way of any Board Resolution of Defendant No.2.
Thus, with these mischievous deeds coupled with the dishonest and
malafide intentions and the collusion with the other co-conspirators /
associates, the Plaintiff cheated and caused a huge financial loss to
Defendants herein to the tune of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen
Crores Only), which were detected subsequently after the alleged
MOU.
13. It is submitted that even for the sake of argument (without admitting
it to be correct), if it is assumed that the MOU dated 29.08.2008 was

not an act of deception and cheating, then as per the contents of the
MOU dated 29.08.2008, it is admitted by the plaintiff himself that the
merger in the year 2005 of the respective business of both the parties
to the present suit was the condition precedent for entering into the
new joint venture under the name & style of M/s. Ivory Clothing Pvt.
Ltd. By parallel running his own company under the name of M/s.
Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff kept the Defendants
in dark throughout the years which resulted in huge monetary losses
to the Defendants to the tune of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen
Crores Only). It is necessary to point out here that the first clause of
the alleged MOU, categorically reflects that Defendant No. 1 owned the
ancestral business of manufacturing and exporting garments by the
name of M/s Delfin Enterprises and M/s Fashion Wears in the year
2005. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s experience was limited to
handling garment manufacturing only. The Plaintiff needed
Defendants for his expertise and experience in exporting of garments.
Thus, in view of abovementioned material facts, it is evident that the
plaintiff had mischievously, with an intention to cheat both the
defendants, persuaded Defendant No. 1 for entering into the alleged
MOU in order to exonerate himself from the huge liabilities of the
wrongful loss caused to the defendant by cheating and conspiracy, to
the tune of Rs. 16,00,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Only). That in
any event, the MOU dated 29.08.2008 which is the basis of the present
suit was signed between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, however,
the Defendant No. 2 company did not even ratify or confirm the said
MOU dated 29.08.2008.
14. That the malafide design and intention to cheat on the Plaintiff’s part
is apparent luminous luminaire on reading the tenor of Clause (g) of

the MOU (drafted by the CA of the Plaintiff) attempting to insulate the
plaintiff from future liability, if the frauds were detected by the
Defendants in the subsequent period i.e. after 29.08.2008 which is the
date of the execution of the MOU.
15. That it is necessary to point out at this juncture that in the past so
many years, the Plaintiff never sought any details/books of accounts

from the Defendants and now all of a sudden when the Plaintiff is
facing criminal investigation and is chargesheeted, he decides to file a
suit for books, stock etc. It is submitted that if the said books of
accounts, stocks etc. were so necessary then why didn’t the plaintiff
approach the concerned authorities against the defendants at the
appropriate time. It is manifestly clear from the abovementioned fact
that the plaintiff is trying to give the real controversy in question, a
colour of civil proceedings so that the plaintiff can be absolved from
his criminal liabilities and prosecution. The present suit is liable to be
dismissed at the threshold on this ground alone.
16. That the plaintiff's regular filing of the sales tax returns subsequent to
the execution of the MOU dated 29.08.2008, speaks volumes regarding

the fact that the books/documents which are being sought from the
Defendant vide the present suit have always been in possession of the
Plaintiff himself. In this regard, it is submitted herein that after the
execution of the MOU dated 29.08.2008, the Defendants dissected
material discrepancies through the competent audits, records of
internal scrutiny of the Defendant no. 2. In furtherance thereof, during
the course of the investigation initiated vide the FIR no. 125/2010 at
P.S. EOW, Delhi, it was revealed that the plaintiff had taken back the
possession of all his articles including his computers from the premises
of Defendant No. 2 and therefore the alleged plea of the Plaintiff that he
was restrained from procuring his goods worth several Lacs as well as
the books of the accounts lying therein is, on the face of it, untenable in
the eyes of law.
17. That the list of documents or the documents filed alongwith the said
amended plaint have not been received by the defendants. The

Defendants were not supplied with fresh set of documents with the
amended plaint and the Defendants seek leave of this Hon’ble Court to
reserve their right to file a fresh Affidavit of Admission and Denial to
the subsequent list of documents, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, in the
interest of justice.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:-
1. That Defendant No. 2 is a company incorporated under the provisions

of Companies Act, 1956 and Defendant no. 1 is its Director since its
incorporation.
2. That it is submitted that wife of Plaintiff Smt. Raina Suri was also the
Director in M/s. Anjjane Clothing and Sh. Sajjal Khanna is the friend of
Plaintiff, who is also involved in a similar business.
3. That during the period when the Plaintiff was director of Defendant
no. 2 company, he was responsible for all its operations including
accounting, human resources, Labour Laws and other legal
compliances whereas Defendant no. 1 was only looking after
marketing and business development of the Defendant no. 2 company.
4. That in the month of November, 2006, the Father of Defendant No. 1

was diagnosed with cancer and Defendant no. 2 being the only child of
his parents had to look after his father. It is for the aforesaid reason
that Defendant no. 1 was unable to devote his time to the affairs of
Defendant No. 1. It is necessary to mention that Defendant no. 1 had
complete faith and trust in the Plaintiff that he will take good care of
business of Defendant No. 2 company while the Defendant No. 1 is busy
in taking care of his ill father.
5. That father of Defendant No. 1 expired in the month of February 2008
and when he started attending to the business of the Defendant No. 2,
he was shocked to find various irregularities and illegalities and noted
that there were huge outstanding dues from unknown creditors and
advances to the debtors. That when Defendant No. 1 confronted the
Plaintiff with the same and sought explanation from him, then, in a
mischievous and cunning manner, the Plaintiff offered to settle it by
himself and even offered to resign and transfer his shares with the
assurance that the Plaintiff will run his business separately.
6. That subsequently, a memo of settlement was prepared by the

Plaintiff's C.A. wherein the Plaintiff offered to resign from the
directorship and transfer his shares as part of his well-planned
conspiracy to cover up the frauds committed by him in absence of
Defendant No. 1, of more than 3 Crores, until the signing of the said
MOU dated 29.08.2008. That the said MoU has been obtained by way of
fraud by the Plaintiff by not disclosing material facts and concealing
records from the Defendants and as such, fraud vitiates such
documents being non-est and void-ab-initio and not legally enforceable
under law.
7. That it was revealed later on that plaintiff had not only taken loans in
his personal name from accounts of Defendant No. 2 but had also, in an
unauthorized manner, transferred huge sums of money to his wife i.e.
Raina Suri showing the same to be "Commission on Sales" whereas,
Raina Suri had never rendered any such services to Defendant No. 2. It
was also revealed that a close friend of the Plaintiff namely Mr. Sajal
Khanna was also part of conspiracy to cheat and commit fraud with
the Defendants and the Plaintiff had also made fraudulent payments to
the various firms of Sajjal Khanna.
8. That in addition to the aforesaid, various other irregularities were also

detected on scrutiny of accounts including huge Sales Tax liability
against Defendant No. 1, fake bills to M/s. Raymon Textiles of Rs. 80
Lakhs and other fake bills to the tune of Rs. 70 Lakh, manufacturing
costs paid by defendants to the orders of M/s. Alfasailiah, Proforma
invoices and payments in the name of his own company i.e. M/s.
Anjjane Clothing for an amount of $89,932/- (US Dollar), False
purchases to the tune of Rs. 40,45,929/- having M/s. Anjjane Clothing
as a beneficiary etc.
9. That the Defendants submitted a complaint to the P.S. EOW based in

which the FIR dated 16.08.2010 bearing no. 125/2010 u/s
406/420/467/468/471 and 120B of IPC was registered with P.S.
Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, Delhi.
10. It is pertinent to mention that subsequent to the filing of the charge-
sheet by the I.O. in the said FIR, the Ld. CMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi
was pleased to observe that prima facie case was made out against the
Plaintiff under section 406/420/467/468/471 of the IPC vide order
dated 10.01.2017 and thereafter framed charges against the Plaintiff
under section 406/420/467/468/471 of the IPC vide order dated
24.01.2017. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed revision petition on
02.05.2017 bearing CR. No. 220 of 2017 before the Ld. ASJ, Saket
Courts, New Delhi against the order dated 10.01.2017 & 24.01.2017
passed by the Ld. CMM which was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ vide order
dated 06.12.2019.
11. That during the year 2006, father of defendant no. 1 fell ill and in the
month of November 2006 was detected with a non-curable cancer,

which resulted in Defendant No. 1 remaining absent from day to day
work of the Defendant No. 2 company. The plaintiff took advantage of
this and systematically defrauded Defendant no. 2 by siphoning off its
funds for his personal interest and gains committing breach of trust
towards the fiduciary duties he owed to the Defendant No. 1company
being one of its Directors. By doing so, the Plaintiff siphoned off more
than Rs. 3 Crores of the defendant no. 2 company until the execution of
MOU dated 29.08.2008.
12. That father of the Defendant No. 1 died in the month of February 2008
and the accounting year closed on 31.03.2008, while going through

the accounting reports of the Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 1 found
huge outstanding dues from unknown creditors and finances to
unknown debtors. Thereafter, when the Plaintiff was confronted with
the records of Defendant no. 2 regarding the details and nature of
these entries, the Plaintiff offered to settle the same himself and
thereafter offered his resignation. It is submitted that at that point of
time, defendant no. 1 fell to the ill designs of plaintiff not knowing that
the siphoned off amount is only 3 crores of rupees, not more than that
and that the MOU was only a malafide design of the plaintiff so that
his frauds remained undetected. The said designs of the plaintiff
became apparent when the defendant no. 1 later with the help of his
auditors was able to detect huge systematic fraud.
13. Furthermore, in order to give complete shape to his malafide designs,
the Plaintiff managed to employ one of his trusted employees namely

Chander Mohan into Defendant no. 2 and also used his own company
M/s. Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. in illegally transferring huge
amounts out of the account of Defendant no. 2.
14. It is on these malafide acts and deceptive behavior that the Plaintiff
has preferred the present suit for a decree of Specific Performance of

the MOU dated 29.08.2008. However, it is pertinent to mention that
the said MOU dated 29.08.2008 was never a valid contract as it had
been executed by deceiving and inducing the Defendant No. 1 herein.
15. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is claiming a compensation of Rs.
2,80,00,000/- from the Defendant herein, however, it is apposite to

mention that it is the Plaintiff himself who has cheated the Defendant
by siphoning off huge amounts of money thereby committing cheating
and criminal breach of trust. In this regard, it has been made
abundantly clear that the Plaintiff is a charge sheeted criminal against
whom an order framing charges under section
406/420/467/468/471 of the IPC has been passed.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE DEFENDANT

SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING :-
PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS:
1. That the contents of para no. 1 of the present amended plaint need no
reply to the extent that the plaintiff is having the firm by the name and
style of M/s. Anjanne Clothing as per ROC record. The rest of the
contents of the para under the amended plaint are denied for want of
knowledge and the plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the same.
2. That the contents of para no. 2 of the present amended plaint are false
mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. The plaintiff may
be put to strict proof of the contents of the paragraph under amended
plaint. It is submitted that the answering defendant was a well-
established exporter in the foreign market. That the plaintiff suggested
to start a new venture, wherein the plaintiff would invest only 30%
and the defendant would invest a major part of 70% of the capital.
That the defendant got enticed and accepted the proposal, by shutting
down M/s. Delfin & Fashion wears and evolving M/s. Ivory Clothing
Pvt. Ltd. whereas, on the other hand, the plaintiff did not shut his
company and made his wife and his associates run the same.
3. That the contents of para no. 3 of the present amended plaint are
matter of record and needs no reply.
4. That the contents of para no. 4 of the present amended plaint are false,
mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and every
averment contained in the para under present amended plaint is
hereby denied as if the same were individually adverted to and
specifically denied. The plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the
contents of para under present amended plaint. That it is reiterated
that the plaintiff although got into an agreement with the defendant
but against the terms of the agreement, did not shut his company but
made his wife and his associates run the same. That the plaintiff's
fraud was apparent since not only did he continue to run his company
but used the labour, resources, facilities of the defendants, took orders
in the name of defendant no. 2 and received payment of the
manufactured goods in his own company account. That his fraud did
not end there, the plaintiff further transferred money from the account
of the defendant no. 2 into his company’s account and undoubtedly
caused colossal loss to the defendants.
contents of the para under present amended plaint. That the plaintiff
not only cheated the defendants by running his own company
simultaneously but also poached on the clients of the defendants. That
the entire expenses right from the purchasing of raw material, salary
of the employees, dispatch of the goods etc. were being borne by the
defendant no. 2 whereas the payments so received were malafidely
redirected into the plaintiff's account. It is further submitted that the
‘Packing Credit’ given to the defendant no. 2 which is normally used
for the export in the international market was exhausted by the
plaintiff in the domestic market merely to benefit his own company.
mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. That each and
every averment contained in the para under present amended plaint is
contents of the para under present amended plaint. That it is
submitted that the submissions made supra are reiterated and are not
being repeated for the sake of brevity. That the plaintiff has
connivingly concealed the date regarding when his personal company
was restarted. That it is further submitted that the defendant no. 1 due
to his father's ill health was not even aware that the plaintiff was
running his own company parallel to that of the defendant no. 1 and
was using all the resources of the defendant no. 2.
specifically denied. That the plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the
contents of the para under present amended plaint. That on being
exposed, having committed gross financial irregularities in a regular
and systematic conspiracy, by way of huge outstanding from unknown
creditors & advances to debtors, the plaintiff immediately offered to
resign from the company, transfer shares undertook personal liability
for recovery & payment of the outstanding himself. That it is further
submitted that the defendant no. 1 never took the possession of the
books, stocks of the plaintiff's company and on the contrary even
allowed the plaintiff to use the premises of the defendant no. 1 until
August 2008 in good faith.
mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied in toto. Each and
same. That it is reiterated that on being exposed, having committed
gross financial irregularities in a regular and systematic manner, by
way of huge outstanding from unknown creditors & advances to
debtors, the plaintiff immediately offered to resign from the company,
transfer shares & undertook personal liability for recovery & payment
of the outstanding himself. That it is vehemently submitted that the
plaintiff connivingly induced the Director, Mr. Aniljit Singh, defendant
no. 1 herein into signing an MOU dated 29.08.2008 and gave Post-
Dated-Cheques spread over a period of six months. That the said MOU
was drafted by the plaintiff himself in connivance with his Chartered
Accountant and covered only Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Lakh
Rupees). That the said MOU was signed by the Director Aniljit
Singh/defendant no. 1 in respect of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (One Crore
Thirty Lakh Rupees) against recovery/outstanding. That by no stretch
of imagination did it indemnify the plaintiff herein against any
criminal proceedings. That it is reiterated that M/s. Ivory Clothing;
defendant no. 2 did not authorize any such MOU by any Board
resolution in this regard, nor did it ratify it subsequently. That Para "g"
of the said MOU clearly specifies that the said MOU was only in respect
of Civil Liabilities and that too for instances prior to 15 th January, 2008.
That unlike the plaintiff the defendants did not engage into any
concealment of facts at any stage. That it is further submitted that the
transaction with M/s. Al-Faisaliah, Saudi Arabia and the proceeds of
which, the plaintiff had misappropriated into his personal account,
formed part of the said MOU. That the fraud is apparent from the fact
that the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs. 24,00,000/- (Twenty-Four Lakh
Rupees) to the defendant against the goods shipped by him to M/s. Al
Faisalia whereas the total LC amount was around Rs. 40,00,000/- (US
$ 89,932) besides duty drawback amount received by the plaintiff
from the government against the said export order. Be that as it may
be, no shelter, in any case, could be afforded, whatsoever, from any
criminal liability & even qua civil liability, for acts of commission &
omission, which came to light subsequent to the signing of the MOU.
That it is also pertinent to mention that there was no witness to the
MOU except the CA of the plaintiff who had drafted the MOU and also
made further handwritten additions in the MOU with the malafide
intention and subsequently forged the said MOU to harm the
defendant. That it is also significant to highlight herein that even after
three years and that too after filing his rebuttal/ reply/ defence before
the Investigation Agency in the abovesaid criminal case originated
from FIR no. 125/2010, still, the plaintiff has miserably failed to give
the categorical and specific details in respect of his goods worth
Rupees several Lacs, which were lying in the premises of the
defendant no. 2, as alleged herein. That this mischievous, concocted
and illusory story, apparently, demolishes the stand of the plaintiff and
categorically establishes that the present suit is nothing but a bogus
litigation and is an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to harass the
defendants and extort the hard-earned money under the garb of the
alleged MOU through the suit in hand before the Hon'ble Court. That it
is also pertinent to highlight herein that the alleged clauses were
mischievously incorporated by the plaintiff in the alleged MOU so that
further financial discrepancies caused by the plaintiff in the business
of the defendant no. 2 should not be detected by any further
competent and authorized audits of the defendant no. 2. Thus, the
plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief from this Hon'ble Court, as
the plaintiff has miserably failed to show his clear right to sue in terms
of the reliefs sought vide suit in hand before the Hon'ble Court. Hence,
the alleged plea of the plaintiff that he was restrained from removing
his goods worth several Lacs as well as the books of the accounts lying
therein is, on the face of it, untenable in the eyes of law. That the said
MoU has been obtained by way of fraud by the Plaintiff by not
disclosing material facts and concealing records from the Defendants
and as such, fraud vitiates such documents being non-est and void-ab-
initio and not legally enforceable under law. Therefore, the suit in bad
in law and is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Furthermore, the
Investigating Agency filed the chargesheet dated 03.07.2014 under
section 409/420/468/471/120B IPC against the Plaintiff. Thereafter,
the Ld. CMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi was pleased to pass the Order
dated 10.01.2017 wherein the Ld. CMM observed that prima facie case
against the Plaintiff was made out and also recorded the detailed
allegations against the Plaintiff. Thereafter, charges were framed
against the Plaintiff under section 406/420/467/468/471 of the IPC
vide order dated 24.01.2017. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed revision
petition on 02.05.2017 bearing CR. No. 220 of 2017 before the Ld. ASJ,
Saket Courts, New Delhi against the order dated 10.01.2017 &
24.01.2017 passed by the Ld. CMM which was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ
vide order dated 06.12.2019.
matter of record and need no reply to the extent regarding the signing
of the MOU and the amount paid in instalment including the transfer of
shares. That it is reiterated that the defendants do not have any stocks,
books of the said company of the plaintiff in its possession. That being
the case the plaintiff would not have been silent since the last three
years and would have definitely made an endeavour to obtain the
same had the alleged fact been true but the inaction of the plaintiff
manifestly depicts that the alleged fact is fallacious, malafide and
concocted.
false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied in toto. Each

and every averment contained in the para under present amended
plaint is hereby denied as if the same were individually adverted to
and specifically denied. The plaintiff may be put to strict proof of the
contents of the para under reply. It is reiterated that the plaintiff has
siphoned off crores of rupees belonging to the defendant in a complete
pre-planned conspiracy which in itself makes the offence more
grievous in nature. Therefore, it is submitted that the averment made
in para under present amended plaint neither have any basis not any
support. During subsistence of association between the plaintiff and
the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff abused the trust and faith bestowed
upon him and was involved into systematic siphoning off of the funds
from the company M/s. Ivory Clothing Pvt. Ltd qua pre-planned
conspiracy. That the plaintiff's averment that he has paid Rs.
1,30,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Lakh Rupees) and cleared his dues
and liabilities. That the honest-to-goodness factum is that when the
plaintiff herein got exposed for the first time of having siphoned off the
funds in a pre-planned conspiracy, by way of huge outstanding from
unknown creditors & advances to debtors, the plaintiff immediately
offered to resign from the company, transfer shares & undertook
personal liability for recovery & payment of outstanding himself.
Stating so, the plaintiff connivingly induced the answering defendant
into signing an MOU dated 29.08.2008 and gave Post Dated Cheques
spread over a period of 6 months. That the said MOU was drafted by
the plaintiff himself in connivance with his Chartered Accountant and
covered Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Lakh Rupees), in the garb
of liability for recovery & payment of outstanding by plaintiff himself.
false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

reiterated that the defendants are not even aware about the stocks,
books of M/s. Anjanne clothing & M/s. Leggs Clothing. Rather, despite
all the cheating and fraud, the defendant had given the permission to
the plaintiff to work in the same premises and post signing of the MOU,
the plaintiff was even allowed to work for the next seven days and to
take over his belongings out of mercy in bonafide belief. That the
present suit is merely to harass the defendants and to settle a personal
score, since the truth remains that there is nothing in the possession of
the answering defendants. That it is reiterated that the plaintiff’s
regular filing of sales tax returns post MOU, manifestly indicates that
the books etc are all in the possession of the plaintiff and the present
suit is just an eyewash.

contents of the para under present amended plaint. That it is pertinent
to mention that upon confrontation with the plaintiff regarding the
siphoning off the funds, the plaintiff immediately offered to resign in
order to get away with mammoth frauds dishonestly committed by
him, and not because of any other reason as is being falsely alleged by
the plaintiff.

contents of the para under present amended plaint. That it is reiterated
that no books, stocks etc. are in the possession of the defendants. That
the submissions made supra are reiterated and are not being repeated
for the sake of brevity. That it is vehemently denied that any such letter
for the return of the said articles was ever received by the defendants.
That the factum of the matter is that after multiciplity of criminal cases
were slapped on the plaintiff as the dishonest deeds of the plaintiff
caught up with him, the plaintiff is trying to settle scores by making
false and frivolous claims.

contents of the para under present amended plaint. That it is only after
February 2009, during internal audit, that the systematic pre-planned
frauds committed by the plaintiff in form of huge outstanding from
unknown creditors, advances to the debtors, illegal payments, illegal
withdrawal etc. started to surface which manifestly shows the
magnitude of frauds committed by the plaintiff. That it is submitted
that initially the amount involved was to the tune of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-
(3 Crores Rupees), but upon further detections as abovementioned, the
defendant immediately filed FIR before P.S. Nizamuddin, New Delhi
vide complaint dated 09.06.2009. That since, the amount involved in
the economic offence disclosed was beyond the limit of local police
station, the matter was referred by them to EOW, Delhi Police, where
after due perusal of the complaint the FIR No. 125/2010 was
registered on 16.08.2010. That the information furnished manifestly
disclosed commission of cognizable offences including cheating, fraud,
criminal breach of trust & forgery, which is substantiated with the
investigation conducted so far disclosing quantum of offences to be
more than Rs. 8 Crores so far. However, the grant of bail by Ld. ASJ,
Delhi, in completely extra ordinary and irregular manner, within 18
days of arrest of the accused/plaintiff herein, by completely ignoring
the facts, seriousness of offence as well as law position settled in such
matters, did perturb & surprise the answering defendant. That it is
further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has cancelled the bail of
the accused/plaintiff herein vide order dated 27.08.2012. That it is
pertinent to mention that a fresh case under section 307 IPC has been
registered in Noida against the plaintiff by the defendant, after the bail
was cancelled by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. That this manifestly
depicts the conduct of the plaintiff and his complete disregard for the
law of the land who claims to be an innocent person and is thus, proved
as a habitual offender.

to mention that an NCR has been registered with NOIDA Police in
respect of the plaintiff threatening the defendant no. 1 with dire
consequences and getting him killed, and the fact that the defendant
no. 1 was actually intercepted by some bad elements with country
made weapons at the behest of the plaintiff and was intimidated and
manhandled by them who were telling him to withdraw the case
against the accused / plaintiff or else he would be killed clearly shows
the blood curdling acts of the plaintiff and his callous disregard for the
law.

to mention that an NCR has been registered with NOIDA police in
respect of the accused/plaintiff threatening the defendant no. 2 with
dire consequences and getting him killed. That it is submitted that had
the defendant not escaped from the spot, the goons may have gone
further on behalf of the accused/plaintiff who surely intended to cause
harm to the person of the defendant no. 1. It is further brought out that
the defendant no. 1 approached Ld. CJM, Noida in respect of his said
complaint/NCR against the accused / Plaintiff Sumeet Suri & Ors.,
under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., & after considering the matter Ld. CJM,
Noida, vide recent orders dated 17.09.2012 has held that "From the
facts of the Application it is apparent that investigation of the present
case is required. The concerned Station House Officer is directed to take
appropriate action in this respect".

submitted that no books, stock, documents etc. are in the possession of
the answering defendants. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff
took away all his stock, books etc. with him when he vacated the
premises of the defendant no. 1 three years ago. That assuming the
averments made by the plaintiff to be true, even then it is hard to
believe that the books, stock which is creating financial problems to
the plaintiff was never asked in the past 3 years. That this manifestly
depicts that the abovementioned averment is an afterthought of due
deliberation put forth malfidely with an intention to eyewash the
Hon’ble Court. That the truth is known to the plaintiff as well that the
present suit is nothing but a blatant abuse of process of law. That it is
pertinent to mention that the averment made by the plaintiff of facing
huge losses due the unavailability of the book of accounts etc. is
nothing but a false and frivolous statement as the defendants were
able to procure the copy of the statements of accounts of M/s Anjanne
Clothing for a period of 23.04.2008 to 30.04.2009 for your kind
perusal.
18. That the contents of para no. 18 of the present amended plaint are not
only false, frivolous, mischievous and farfetched, the same are

motivated and are hence denied. Each and every averment contained
in the para under present amended plaint is hereby denied as if the
same were individually adverted to and specifically denied. That It is
submitted that the averments herein are completely misplaced since it
is not a case of commercial transaction but it is a case which
manifestly discloses commission of cognizable offences, which are
economic in nature, committed by the plaintiff in a pre-planned
conspiracy. That it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has
siphoned off crores of rupees belonging to the defendants in a manner
which in itself makes the offence more grievous in nature. Therefore, it
is submitted that the averment made under this para neither have any
basis not any support. It is humbly submitted that a bare perusal of the
order clearly brings out that the order passed by Ld. ASJ, Delhi
granting the bail was neither sustainable on facts nor in law. That
consequently, the order of Ld. ASJ was set aside by the Hon'ble Court
of Delhi and the bail of the accused/plaintiff was cancelled.

same were individually adverted to and specifically denied. That the
plaintiff has averred that he paid Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty
Lakh Rupees) because of the arm twisting methods and malafide
intentions of defendants. That these facts in itself are self-contradicting
and point to the guilt of the plaintiff. That the correct fact is that when
the plaintiff herein got exposed for the first time of having siphoned off
the funds in a regular and systematic manner, by way of huge
outstanding from unknown creditors & advances to debtors, he
immediately offered to resign from the company, transfer shares &
undertook personal liability for recovery & payment of outstanding
himself. That the plaintiff has abused the trust and faith bestowed upon
him and was involved into systematic siphoning off of the funds which
were tuning to over Rs. 4 Crores. That the present suit is nothing but a
tool to harass the defendants who are already paying for the wrongs
committed by the plaintiff.

motivated and are hence denied. Save and except all that has been
specifically admitted hereinafter, each and every averment of this
paragraph under present amended plaint is hereby denied as if the
same were individually adverted to and specifically denied. That there
is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff and the same is without any
causa causans.

same were individually adverted to and specifically denied. That the
present suit has not been properly valued and is accordingly
insufficiently stamped. That the MOU was executed between the
parties and the amount to be paid by the plaintiff was Rs.
1,30,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Lakh Rupees). The court fee has been
paid for Rs. 20,00,100/-. The present suit ought to be
dismissed/rejected on this ground alone.
22. That the contents of para no. 22 of the present amended plaint being
statutory para, needs no reply.

PRAYER CLAUSE
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully

prayed that the suit of the Plaintiff being totally, false, frivolous and
misconceived, be dismissed with costs in favour of Defendant Nos.1
and 2 and against the Plaintiff.
Prayer para of the plaint including sub paras (a) to (d) are wrong and
denied. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief prayed for.
Special costs, as are envisaged under Section 35 A of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, be also awarded in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2
and against the Plaintiff for their having initiated totally false, frivolous
and vexatious proceedings against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff
may kindly be dismissed with the cost.

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906 OF 2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
VERIFICATION:
I, Aniljit Singh, S/o Late Sh. Mohanjit Singh, Director of M/s Ivory
Clothing Pvt. Ltd., having registered office at 11 B, Mathura Road, New
Delhi, Defendant No. 1, do hereby solemnly affirm, declare and verify that
the contents of paras 1 to 17 of the Preliminary Objections, paras 1 to 15
of the Preliminary Submissions, para-wise Reply on Merits and Reply to
Prayer clause in the Written Statement to the Amended plaint are true
and correct to my knowledge and information. Last para is a prayer to this
Hon'ble Court.
Verified at New Delhi on this 12th Day of February, 2020
DEFENDANT NO.1
VERIFICATION:
I, Aniljit Singh, S/o Late Sh. Mohanjit Singh, Director of M/s Ivory
Clothing Pvt. Ltd., having registered office at 11 B, Mathura Road, New
Delhi, being duly authorized and representative of Defendant No. 2, do
hereby solemnly affirm, declare and verify that the contents of paras 1 to
17 of the Preliminary Objections, paras 1 to 15 of the Preliminary
Submissions, para-wise Reply on Merits and Reply to Prayer clause in the
Written Statement to the Amended plaint are true and correct to my
knowledge and information. Last para is a prayer to this Hon'ble Court.
Verified at New Delhi on this 12th Day of February, 2020
DEFENDANT NO. 2
I.A. NO. OF 2020

IN
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SHRI SUMEET SURI …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. ON BEHALF OF

DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AGAINST THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present written statement in the abovementioned suit

instituted by the Plaintiff herein is preferred on behalf of Defendant No.
1 and Defendant No. 2 against the falsified and malafide contentions
and claims of the Plaintiff.
2. The entire facts and circumstances of the case are not narrated herein
for the sake of brevity and conciseness, the facts and circumstances
mentioned in the Written Statement shall be read as part and parcel for
the purposes of adjudication of the instant application.
3. That vide order dt. 18.12.2019, this Hon’ble Court had graciously
granted a last opportunity to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to file the
Written Statement to the amended plaint within a period of 4 weeks
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the counsel for the
Plaintiff. That however, the counsel who appeared for the defendant
nos. 1 and 2 on the last occasion, despite instructions and being
supplied with all relevant documents, for the reasons best known to
him, could not draft the written statement and file the same before this
Hon’ble Court before 15.01.2020. The Defendant No. 1 thereafter, asked
for return of all the documents from the previous counsel who was
travelling and delayed the hand over of the documents. The defendant
no. 1 was handed over with the entire suit documents in first week of
February, 2020 and immediately engaged a new counsel who went
through all the relevant record and the chequered history of the present
case and ensured that the written statement is filed before the next date
of hearing before this Hon’ble Court being 14.02.2020 to avoid any
inconvenience to this Hon’ble Court which would attract the wrath of
this Hon’ble Court. The payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- is being paid to
the counsel for the plaintiff with supply of the advance copy of the
present written statement so that the compliance of the order of this
Hon’ble Court dt. 18.12.2019 is carried out in letter and spirit in the
interest of justice.
4. That the Defendant No. 1 and 2 were unable to submit their Written
Statement against the abovementioned Suit of the Plaintiff within the
stipulated time due to negligence and error on part of the previous
Counsel for Defendant No. 1 and 2. The law is settled by this Hon’ble
Court that due to the negligence and error on part of the counsel, the
litigants should not be subjected to irreparable loss which might result
in miscarriage of justice.
5. That as such, this Hon’ble Court may please allow the present
Application and condone the delay of 27 days occurred in filing the
present written statement and the Defendants undertake to abide by
any directions passed by this Hon’ble Court in this regards subject, in
the interest of justice.
PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Condone the delay of 27 days in filing of the Written Statement on

behalf of Defendant No. 1 and 2 to the amended plaint in the
abovementioned Suit being CS (OS) 366/2019 instituted by the
Plaintiff; and
(b) pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906 OF 2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
I.A. NO. OF 2020

IN
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 C.P.C. ON BEHALF OF

DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
TYPED/MARGINED/CERTIFIED COPIS OF THE ANNEXURES.
1. That the present written statement in the abovementioned suit

instituted by the Plaintiff herein is preferred on behalf of Defendant No.
1 and Defendant No. 2 against the falsified and malafide contentions
and claims of the Plaintiff.
2. The entire facts and circumstances of the case are not narrated herein
for the sake of brevity and conciseness, the facts and circumstances
mentioned in the Written Statement shall be read as part and parcel for
the purposes of adjudication of the instant application.
3. That vide order dt. 18.12.2019, this Hon’ble Court had graciously
granted a last opportunity to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to file the
Written Statement to the amended plaint within a period of 4 weeks
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the counsel for the
Plaintiff. That however, the counsel who appeared for the defendant
nos. 1 and 2 on the last occasion, despite instructions and being
supplied with all relevant documents, for the reasons best known to
him, could not draft the written statement and file the same before this
Hon’ble Court before 15.01.2020. The Defendant No. 1 thereafter, asked
for return of all the documents from the previous counsel who was
travelling and delayed the hand over of the documents. The defendant
no. 1 was handed over with the entire suit documents in first week of
February, 2020 and immediately engaged a new counsel who went
through all the relevant record and the chequered history of the present
case and ensured that the written statement is filed before the next date
of hearing before this Hon’ble Court being 14.02.2020 to avoid any
inconvenience to this Hon’ble Court which would attract the wrath of
this Hon’ble Court.
4. That due to paucity of time, the Defendant No.1 could not procure the
certified/clear/typed copies of the documents. That the Defendants
undertake to place on record the typed/margined/certified copies of
the documents at the earliest before this Hon’ble Court when the same
are available to them.
5. That as such, this Hon’ble Court may please allow the present
Application and the Defendants undertake to abide by any directions
passed by this Hon’ble Court in this regards subject, in the interest of
justice.
PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and submissions, it is
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(c) Grant exemption from filing the Defendants from filing the
typed/margined/certified copies of their respective original
documents; and
(d) pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906 OF 2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. True copies of the cheque issued by Plaintiff in favour

of his associates/co-conspirators.
2. True copy of the chargesheet dated 03.07.2014 under
section 409/420/468/471/120B IPC against the
Plaintiff in FIR No. 125 of 2010.
3. True Copy of the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by
the Ld. CMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 125 of
2010.
4. True Copy of the Order dated 24.01.2017 passed by
the Ld. CMM, Saket Courts, New Delhi in FIR No. 125 of
2010.
5. True copy of the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the
Ld. ASJ in Criminal Revision bearing CR. No. 220 of
2017.
6. True Copy of the Order dated 17.09.2012 passed by
Ld. CJM, Noida Court against the Plaintiff w.r.t NCR
bearing No. 13/2011 u/s 506 of IPC.
7. True copy of the sale tax returns & balance sheet of
M/s. Anjanne Clothing of the period when the plaintiff
was working as one of the Director for defendant no.
2.
8. True copy of the statements of account of M/s.
Anjanne Clothing.

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906 OF 2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Aniljit Singh, S/o Late Sh. Mohanjit Singh, Director of M/s Ivory Clothing
Pvt. Ltd., having registered office at 11 B, Mathura Road, New Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Defendant No. 1 and Director of the Defendant No. 2 in

the present Suit filed by the Plaintiff and, hence, am duly authorized on
behalf of Defendant No. 2 to swear the present Affidavit.
2. That I have gone through the abovementioned Written Statement from

Page No. to as such and am well aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case and am hence competent to swear this
affidavit.
3. That the instant Written Statement has been drafted by my counsel on

my instructions. I have carefully gone through the contents therein
and state that the same are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
4. That the documents filed alongwith the Written Statement are true
and correct copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 12th Day of February, 2020 that the contents
of the aforesaid affidavit are true to the correct of me knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
I.A. NO. OF 2020
IN
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Aniljit Singh, S/o Late Mohanjit Singh, Director of M/s Ivory Clothing

2. That I have gone through the abovementioned Application from Page

No. to as such and am well aware of the facts and
affidavit.
3. That the instant Application has been drafted by my counsel on my

instructions. I have carefully gone through the contents therein and
state that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
INDEX

NO.
1. Details of Admission/Denial carried out by Defendant
No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 of the documents filed by the
Plaintiff.
2. Affidavit of Admission/Denial carried out by Defendant
No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 of the documents filed by the
Plaintiff.

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906 OF 2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
ADMISSION AND DENIAL OF THE DOCUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF

CARRIED OUT BY DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND DEFENDANT NO. 2 (AS PER
THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE
ORIGINAL PLAINT)
1. That the admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff in the

original plaint is given as under. The Defendants were not supplied
with fresh set of documents with the amended plaint and the
Defendants seek leave of this Hon’ble Court to reserve their right to
file a fresh Affidavit of Admission and Denial to the subsequent list of
documents, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice.
Documents filed with the Plaint by the Plaintiff
S.NO. PARTICULARS LETTER CONTENTS PAGE

OF LETTER NO.
1. Agreement/Memorandum of Denied Denied
Understanding dated 29.08.2008. having been
obtained by
Fraud.
2. List of books of accounts and Denied Denied
records pertaining to M/s Anjjane
Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. for
financial year 01.04.2000 to
31.03.2008
3. List of books of accounts and Denied Denied
records pertaining to Leggs
Clothing Company for financial
year 2000 to 2006.
4. True Copy of Letter dated Denied Denied
20.02.2009.
5. Delivery Reciept dated Denied Denied
24.02.2009

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906 OF 2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Aniljit Singh, S/o Late Sh. Mohanjit Singh, Director of M/s Ivory Clothing

2. That I am carrying out admission and denial of documents filed by the

Plaintiff in the original plaint is given as under. The Defendants were
not supplied with fresh set of documents with the amended plaint and
the Defendants seek leave of this Hon’ble Court to reserve their right
to file a fresh Affidavit of Admission and Denial to the subsequent list
of documents, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice. The
Admission and Denial is being carried out by me on a separate list
attached alongwith this Affidavit which be read as a part and parcel of
the present affidavit.
3. That the documents at Serial No. 1-5 are denied by me.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
I.A. NO. OF 2020
IN
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Aniljit Singh, S/o Late Mohanjit Singh, Director of M/s Ivory Clothing

2. That I have gone through the abovementioned Application from Page

No. to as such and am well aware of the facts and
affidavit.
3. That the instant Application has been drafted by my counsel on my

instructions. I have carefully gone through the contents therein and
state that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
INDEX

NO.
1. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT.
3. Application under Section 151 C.P.C. for Exemption
from filing typed/margined/certified copies of the
documents alongwith Affidavit.
4. VAKALATNAMA

THROUGH
RAJ KAMAL
(ADVOCATE)

D-906/2006/ +91 9873748646/ 011-43011501
NEW DELHI
DATED: 12.02.2020
VAKALATNAMA
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT NEW DELHI
CS (OS) NO. 366/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
VERSUS
KNOW All to whom these present shall come that I/ We do hereby appoint:
RAJ KAMAL
ADVOCATE
ASEEM ATWAL & KARTAVYA BATRA, ADVOCATES
RK LAW CHAMBERS
D-11, GF, JUNGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
PH: 9873748646/ 011-43011501. ENR. NO.:- D-906/2006.
(hereinafter called the Advocate) to be my/ our Advocate in the above case and authorise him:
To Act, appear and plead in the above noted case in this Court and any other Court in which the
same may be tried or heard and also in the Appellate Court including High Court subject to payment of fee
separately for each Court by me/ us.
To sign, verify and present pleadings, appeals, cross-objections or petitions for execution, review,
revision, withdrawal, compromise or other petitions or affidavits or other documents as may be deemed
necessary or proper for the prosecution of the said case in all its stages subject to payment of fee at each
stage.
To file and take back documents, to admit and/ or deny the documents of opposite party.
To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or disputes that
may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
To make execution proceedings. To deposit, draw and receive money, cheque, cash and grant
receipts thereof and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress and
in the course of prosecution of the said case.
To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner authorising him to exercise the power and
authority conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so and to sign the power of attorney
on my/ our behalf.
And I/ We, the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by the Advocate or
his substitute in the matter as my/ our own acts as if done by me/ us to all intents and purposes.
And I/ We undertake that I/ We or my/ our duly authorised agent would appear in the Court on all
hearings and will inform the advocate for appearance when the case is called.
And I/ We, the undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the Advocate or his substitute responsible
for the result of the said case. The adjournment cost whenever ordered by the Court shall be of the
Advocate which he shall receive and retain himself.
And I/ We, the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part of the fee
agreed by me/ us to be paid to the Advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the
prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up. The fee settled is only for the above case and the
above Court. I/ We hereby agree that once the fee is paid, I/ We will not be entitled to the refund of the
same in any case whatsoever and if the above case prolongs for more than 3 years the original fee shall be
paid again by me/ us.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/ We do here unto set my/ our hands to these presents the content of which
have been understood by me/ us on 12.02.2020
Accepted subject to the agreed terms of the fees.
ADVOCATE CLIENT(S)

Written Statement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Written Statement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Written Statement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

DEFENDANT NOS. 1 & 2

ASEEM ATWAL & KARTAVYA BATRA,

CS (OS) NO. 366/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SH. SUMEET SURI …PLAINTIFF

SH. ANILJIT SINGH & ANR. …DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 AND

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the same is

2. That the plaintiff has deliberately and mischievously withheld material

6. That the defendants submits that the present written statement is

8. It is submitted that during the course of investigation in the

9. It is furthermore submitted that the criminal conspiracy of the Plaintiff

fraudulently diverted finished garments belonging to Defendant No. 2

records of the Defendant No. 2 by the concerned CA and the following

12. It is also emphatically submitted herein that in order to justify the

transfer of stock of garments belonging to Defendant No. 2 in favour of

it to be correct), if it is assumed that the MOU dated 29.08.2008 was

is apparent luminous luminaire on reading the tenor of Clause (g) of

many years, the Plaintiff never sought any details/books of accounts

the execution of the MOU dated 29.08.2008, speaks volumes regarding

amended plaint have not been received by the defendants. The

1. That Defendant No. 2 is a company incorporated under the provisions

4. That in the month of November, 2006, the Father of Defendant No. 1

6. That subsequently, a memo of settlement was prepared by the

8. That in addition to the aforesaid, various other irregularities were also

9. That the Defendants submitted a complaint to the P.S. EOW based in

10. It is pertinent to mention that subsequent to the filing of the charge-

month of November 2006 was detected with a non-curable cancer,

and the accounting year closed on 31.03.2008, while going through

13. Furthermore, in order to give complete shape to his malafide designs,

the Plaintiff managed to employ one of his trusted employees namely

has preferred the present suit for a decree of Specific Performance of

15. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is claiming a compensation of Rs.

2,80,00,000/- from the Defendant herein, however, it is apposite to

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, THE DEFENDANT

PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS:

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied in toto. Each

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

false, mischievous, motivated, misleading and are denied. Each and

only false, frivolous, mischievous and farfetched, the same are

only false, frivolous, mischievous and farfetched, the same are

only false, frivolous, mischievous and farfetched, the same are

only false, frivolous, mischievous and farfetched, the same are

statutory para, needs no reply.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully

Special costs, as are envisaged under Section 35 A of the Code of Civil

DEFENDANT NOS. 1 & 2

ASEEM ATWAL & KARTAVYA BATRA,