You are on page 1of 9

BEFORE THE COURT OF HON’BLECIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II

RAIPUR (C.G.)

1. Peeyush Kumar Verma


2. Pawan Kumar Verma
both S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Verma,
both R/o C7, Ashoka Park, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, Teh. & Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
Mob. Nos. 9098441000 & 9098531000 … PLAINTIFFS

Versus

1. Nisha Solomon w/o Late


Vipin ChandraSudhakar
Solomon, R/o G-33, Civil Line,
New Panchsheel Nagar, Ward 42,
Tehsil & Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
Presently residing at –
Nyati Garden, Valmik 304,
Mahamod Wadi,
Pune – 411060, Maharashtra
2. Subhash Bhosle s/o Shioram Bhosle,
R/oNyati Garden, Valmik 304,
Mahamod Wadi,Pune – 411060,
Maharashtra
3. Pramod Chand s/o Shri A. Chand,
R/o D-50, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar,
Raipur, Tehsil & Dist. Raipur (C.G.)
4. Sonand Agrawal s/o …………………,
R/o Avanti Vihar, Raipur , Tehsil &
Dist. Raipur (C.G.) … DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The above named plaintiffs states as follows :-

1. That the plaintiffs are directors of Zenox Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter
referred to as plaintiffs company), which is a private limited company duly
incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 603, 6 th
floor, Ravi Bhawan, near Jaistambh, Raipur (C.G.) engaged in the business of
providing internet services.
2. That the defendant no.1’s husband late Vipin Chandra Sudhakar Solomon was
holding share capital in the plaintiffs company to the tune of 22927 equity shares
under folio no. 0008 and 556300 preference shares under folio no. 0009, both equity
and preference shares at the face value of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten) per share. The said
Mr. Solomon had become share holder of the plaintiffs company on the 28 th day of
February, 2014. On the death of defendant no.1’s husband, the defendant no.1 has
applied for transfer of such share holdings on her name, the same is under process.
3. That defendant no.2 is brother in law of defendant no.1, in specific defendant no.1’s
sister’s husband, having retired from job and permanently residing at Pune,
Maharashtra. The defendant no.3 is brother of defendant no.1 residing in Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. The defendant no.4 & 5 jointly, with defendant no. 1 and her daughter
Vini Solomon, owns a piece of land admeasuring around 5 acres at Kachna, Raipur.
The defendant no. 1, her daughter Vini Solomon along with defendant no. 4 & 5 has
struck a sale agreement with Basant Jain R/o Tagore Nagar for the sale of aforesaid
Kachna land. Pertinent to mention here that defendant no. 1’s husband during his
lifetime had struck a sale agreement for the sale of his share in the said Kachna land
with one Pritam Singh Khanuja and had received an advance of Rs. 45 lacs on
account of that, but before defendant no. 1’s husband could execute registered sale
deed in favour of said Mr. Khanuja, he died of heart attack on dated 20.02.2016. The
defendant no. 1 without returning the said Rs. 45 lacs to the said Mr. Khanuja and
further keeping him in dark, struck the aforesaid agreement with Mr. Basant Jain
(Kachna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) The defendant no. 1 in order to meet her liabilities
standing at around Rs. 84 lacs had requested to defendant no. 4 & 5 to remit such
amount. Vide a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) struck between defendant
no. 4, 5 and defendant no. 1, an amount of Rs. 50 lacs less interest @ 1.35% for two
months (amounting to Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs approx.) has been given to
defendant no. 1 by defendant no. 4 & 5 in the presence of plaintiffs, who along with
defendant no.3 are witnesses in the said MOU. It will be appropriate to mention here
that the plaintiffs on account of close proximity with the husband of defendant no.1,
after the demise of Mr. Solomon (husband of defendant no.1), had extended all sorts
of help to defendant no.1 and that was the sole reason of their presence at the time
of execution of the said MOU.
4. That late Vipin Chandra Sudhakar Solomon, husband of defendant no.1, though an
ordinary school teacher in Raipur, had amassed huge wealth from unknown sources.
The said late Mr. Solomon owned a plot admeasuring 4000 Sq. Ft. with a double
storied house built thereupon in the posh area of Raipur at Shriram nagar, Shankar
Nagar, the same was sold to Zenox Solutions Pvt. Ltd.(plaintiffs company) vide
registered sale deed 25/02/2014. Further the said late Mr. Solomon also owned a
HIG under CGHB situated at Boriyakala, Raipur, which as per information received
by the plaintiffs, has been sold by defendant no.1 after the demise of said Mr.
Solomon. Also, the said late Mr. Solomon owns a big chunk of land in Pune along
the Pune-Mumbai highway worth approximately Rs. 15 Crores. Apart from this the
said late Mr. Solomon owned several other immovable properties and also sizeable
movable properties.
5. That the said late Mr. Solomon, after becoming shareholder of the plaintiffs
company, during his life time had taken various loans from the plaintiffs company
and prior to the repayment of such loans, the said Mr. Solomon died on account of
massive heart attack on 20.02.2016. At the time of his death, Mr. Solomon’s debt
towards the plaintiffs company stood at Rs.36,16,607/- for the recovery of which the
plaintiffs company has filed a recovery suit against the present defendant no.1,
before the competent Court of law at Raipur.
6. That the said Mr. Solomon during his lifetime had struck a sale agreement with
plaintiff no.1, for the sale of his house “HIG under CGHB, situated at Boriyakala,
Raipur” for a consideration of Rs. 70 Lacs (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only), and the
said Mr. Solomon had received Rs.10 Lacs (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from plaintiff
no.1 as advance for the same. Thereafter, Mr. Solomon on account of lapses and his
inability, couldn’t execute the registered sale deed for the said property with Plaintiff
no.1 in time, and before Mr. Solomon could have returned the said advance money,
he died as aforesaid. After the death of Mr. Solomon, defendant no.1, in a clandestine
manner, without annulling the aforesaid sale agreement, sold the said property (HIG
under CGHB at Boriyakala) to someone else. The sale of the aforementioned
property came to the knowledge of Plaintiff no.1 much later, subsequent to which
the defendant no.1, anticipating the dire legal consequences incidental to the sale,
returned the advance amount with interest at commercial rates, which had accrued
to the tune of Rupees 20 lakhs approx. to the plaintiff no. 1.
Pertinent to mention here that the defendant no. 1, out of the aforesaid 48 Lacs
received under MOU, had paid Rs. 45 lacs to Mr. Pritam Singh Khanuja for
annulling the aforementioned agreement in order to avoid the legal complications.
The defendant no. 1 apprised about the same to plaintiffs on 09.07.2016.

7. That defendant no. 1 had full knowledge of her late husband’s liabilities as the
plaintiffs had apprised her with the same after death of Mr. Solomon. The defendant
no. 1 along with defendant nos. 2 & 3 had come to the corporate office of Plaintiffs
Company on 20.09.2016 seeking the succession of her late husband’s (Mr. Vipin
Chandra Sudhakar Solomon’s) share in the plaintiffs company. For the said purpose
the defendant no. 1 submitted an application along with few other documents for
transmission of equity shares and cumulative redeemable preference shares of
plaintiffs company held by defendant no. 1’s late husband, on her name. At that time
the defendant nos. 1 to 3 were reminded of the payment of late Mr. Solomon’s
aforesaid debts due to the plaintiffs company, this infuriated the said defendants and
they in a threatening manner made it clear to the plaintiffs not to think of the said
debt and rather to concentrate on the said transmission of shares so that the same is
done expeditiously. On plaintiffs further insistence that the said debts are to be
anyhow cleared otherwise they would seek legal remedy, the said defendants in
general and defendant no. 2 in particular threatened the plaintiffs with dire
consequences. The defendant no. 2 very categorically told the plaintiffs to close the
issue of said debts otherwise the said defendants will be forced to frame the plaintiffs
in false cases which will prove detrimental to plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Company’s
interest.

8. That the plaintiffs sometime later came to know that defendant no. 1 has left Raipur
and is residing in Pune with defendant no. 2. Further the plaintiffs also came to know
that the defendant no. 1 has no plans, at least in near future, to return to Raipur. It
also came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 has not cleared her
debts and she still owes a lot of money to the people in the market and therefore to
avoid such payments she has fled from Raipur. The plaintiffs made all possible
efforts to get back the outstanding dues of late Mr. Solomon from defendant no. 1,
on not finding success the plaintiffs, to be precise plaintiff no. 1, sometime in
October, 2016, called defendant no. 3 and asked for the said debts. The defendant
no. 3 made it clear to the plaintiffs that at this point of time the defendant nos. 1 to 3
have no plans to clear the said debts, only once the aforementioned shares are
transferred on the name of defendant no. 1, they may take up the issue of said debts
and take a call on it.
It is important to mention here that defendant no. 3 further warned the plaintiffs that
plaintiffs will have to face dire consequences if they seek any legal remedy against
defendant nos.1 to 3. Nevertheless the plaintiffs made it clear to defendant no. 3 that
if the debt of defendant no. 1 is not cleared within 2 to 3 weeks, in that case the
plaintiffs will go for appropriate legal action to recover their said debts from
defendant no. 1.
9. That plaintiffs company is in business of retail distribution of data and plaintiffs with
their continuous toil for the last few years have earned huge goodwill and public
trust, defendants have full knowledge of the same and when plaintiffs insisted the
defendants 1 to 3 to clear the debts of late Mr. Solomon, the said defendants in
general and defendant no.3 in particular threatened of destroying their reputation in
the market. It will be pertinent to mention here that as aforesaid, late Mr. Solomon
on account of holding substantial amount of shares in plaintiffs company was quite
close to plaintiffs and after his death the plaintiffs saw to it that all or any type of
help is extended to the widow of the late Mr. Solomon (defendant no.1), the plaintiffs
helped and stood by the defendant no.1 in all financial affairs, wherever possible and
subsequently as mentioned earlier plaintiffs in good faith drafted the aforesaid MOU
in accordance to the instructions of defendant no.1 and 4 and also become witnesses
in the said MOU.

10. That in the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), defendant no. 1


agreed to pay Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. more to the defendant no. 4 & 5 for the land to be
sold to Kachna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. And hence, as per the above understanding,
the defendant no. 4 & 5 at the time of apportionment of sale proceeds (after the
execution of said sale deed with Kachna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) would have
received a sum of approx. Rs. 1 crore more than the defendant no. 1. Also as
mentioned before defendant no. 1 had standing debt of Rs. 50 lacs via MOU towards
defendant no. 4 & 5 and debt of Rs. 36,16,607/- towards plaintiffs company. It would
be further not wrong to state that defendant no. 1 despite knowing the apportionment
of the sale value of Kachna land via MOU was not proportionate and was biased
towards defendant no. 4 & 5, consented for the same as defendant no. 1 from the
very inception had no intention to execute the said sale deed and return the amount
which she had loaned from defendant no. 4 & 5.
It is pertinent to mention here that in order to escape her liabilities which stand
at Rs. 1,86,16,607/- (Rupees 1,00,00,000/-(to be incurred after execution of sale
deed) + 50,00,000/- + 36,16,607/-) defendant no. 1 firstly fled away from Raipur and
then she started spreading rumor against the plaintiffs that they have cheated her,
defendant no. 4 & defendant no. 5 in the sale of Kachna land, and have made illicit
profit out of it, whereas the fact remains that plaintiffs have no part in the dealings
of Kachna land, they just agreed to be witnesses in the MOU in good faith as they
had shared a proximate relationship with the late husband of defendant no. 1.

11. That defendant no. 4, in confused state of affairs and plaintiffs being his only link to
defendant no. 1, called the plaintiffs sometime in November, 2016 and threatened
plaintiffs to either get the sale deed executed in favour of Kachna Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. by bringing defendant no. 1 back to Raipur or defendant no. 4 & 5 will be
compelled to extort his money which defendant no. 1 had taken (Rs. 48 lacs), from
the plaintiffs. Defendant no. 4 further added that he & defendant no.5 will not
hesitate to use extra judicial or illicit force to make plaintiffs deliver such amount to
them.

12. That defendant no. 4 & 5, time and again are threatening the plaintiffs either to get
the said sale deed in favour of Kachna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. executed or else to
deliver the said Rs. 48 lacs to them. The plaintiffs are in dire state of affairs as it is
not possible for them to make defendant no. 1 come to Raipur for executing the said
sale deed. Further, as said above, the defendant no. 1 has deliberately gone into
hiding for awarding the aforesaid payment of Rs. 48 lacs and further to stall the
registration of the said sale deed.

13. That, as said above, the Plaintiffs Company is in the business of retail distribution
of data and plaintiffs with their continuous toil for the last few years have earned
huge goodwill and public trust. The defendant no. 4 & 5 have full knowledge of this
fact and if the plaintiffs do not accede to their aforesaid illegal and unlawful demand,
it is quite possible that the defendant no. 4 & 5 may go to any extent to ruin the
business of Plaintiffs Company. Apart from this the defendant no. 4 & 5 are capable
of causing harm / injury to the plaintiffs in many other ways as they are very affluent
person with high political connections. It would not be a difficult task for them, for
achieving their ends, to use the district administration and police for intimidating the
plaintiffs. Further the defendant no.1 to 3 also leaving no stones unturned to harm/
injure the plaintiff by spreading false rumors and maligning the image of plaintiffs
which is also affecting the plaintiffs company interest.

14. That the said defendant no. 4 & 5, if not restrained by an order of permanent
injunction, in all likelihood may cause irreparable harm / injury to the plaintiffs and
their family in terms of body, mind, reputation and property. The plaintiffs are living
under constant apprehension of danger and injury, and are compelled to constraint
themselves inside the walls of their house, this has affected their day to day affairs,
business and means of livelihood of the plaintiffs. Also the safety of plaintiffs’ kids
and other members of their family has been the major concern in the instant state of
affairs.

Also it is pertinent to mention here that defendant 1 to 3 if not restrained from


causing harm / injury to plaintiffs’ body, mind, reputation and property the plaintiff
would suffer irreparable harm.

15. That as mentioned before defendant no. 4 & 5 are man of high affluence and have
their connections in almost every high public offices, plaintiffs are left with no other
option than to approach this Hon’ble Court for restraining the defendant no. 4 & 5
from criminally intimidating the plaintiffs, by way of grant of permanent injunction
against the defendant no. 4 & 5. Also the defendants 1 to 3 be restrained by grant of
permanent injunction from harming the plaintiffs’ reputation.

16. The cause of action against defendant no.4 & 5 arose for the first time in November,
2016 when the defendant no. 4 on his and defendant no.5’s behalf called plaintiff
no. 1 and threatened him with dire consequences. The cause of action against the
defendant 1 to 3 for the first time arose on 20.09.2016, when the said defendants had
come to the office of plaintiffs’ company and threatened the plaintiffs with dire
consequences, it further arose in October 2016 when on plaintiff no.1’s asking for
clearance of outstanding debts that defendant no.3 had warned the plaintiff no.1
against taking legal remedy. Thereafter, the cause of action against defendants 1 to
5 arose on every day, the cause of action is still subsisting and surviving against the
defendants and in favor of the plaintiffs as the wrong (criminal intimidation, etc.) on
the part of the defendants is still continuing.

17. That the plaintiffs for the purpose of Court fees affixes a fixed Court fee of Rs.
……………./- for permanent injunction by way of judicial stamp paper annexed to
the plaint.

18. That the present suit is filed within the period of limitation.

19. That the plaintiff is filing documents as per list and further reserves its rights for
filing documents in future.

20. That this Hon’ble Court has pecuniary & territorial jurisdiction to try the instant
case.

PRAYER

i. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order restraining the
defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 5 from coercing, intimidating, using
extrajudicial force against plaintiffs for inducing them to deliver the aforesaid
Rs.48 lacs given under MOU by defendant no.4 to defendant no.1, by way of
permanent injunction.
ii. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order restraining the
defendants 1 to 3 from harming the reputation, person and property of the
plaintiffs by way of permanent injunction.
iii. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit.
Raipur/ Plaintiff
(Director & Authorized Signatory)

Verification

I, Peeyush Kumar Verma, Plaintiff no. 1, do hereby verify the contents of the above
suit from para 1 to 20 including prayer clause to be true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Verified on this 11th day of November, 2016 at Raipur (C.G.).

Raipur/ Plaintiff
(Director & Authorized Signatory)

Counsel for Plaintiff


(Ashwini Singh)