1 IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURTS, AT L.B. NAGAR. O.S.No.1197 of 2008 Between: M/s Imperial Projects India Pvt.Ltd., having its registered office at Plot No.1072, Road No.44, Jubilechills, Hyderabad-33. having its office at Flat No.201, S.S.H.Pride, Plot No.273, Road No.78, Jubileehills, Hyderabad. Represented by its Vice President (Operations) Sti Mohammed Azmatullah Ghoti, S/o MIN. Ghori, aged about 39 years, Oce: Business, R/o H.No.11-3-659, New Mallepally, Hyderabad... eel PLAINTIFF AND Badri Singh, S/o Rajaram Singh, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-2-1/2, Serilingampally Mandal, Nanakramguda, Ranga Reddy District. ...DEFENDANT WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH COUNTER-CLAIMS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W ORDER 8 R6-A CPC The defendant humbly submits the following facts in reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. 1) Except the fact that the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and that the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from the defendant, all other averments made in the plaint are false and spurious.2) Itis a fact that the plaintiff is a private limited company. Besides engaged nm the business of construction and development of lands, the plaintifY also deals with the manufacturing of cosmetics and allied products and the defendant is the dealer of the plaintiff for twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The Managing Director of the Plaintiff agreed to give permanent dealership to the defendant for twin cities and in that regard, the plaintif? executed an agreement dated I August, 2008 in favour of the defendant. With that understanding only, the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule property at a meager price of Rs.50 lakhs under the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008 executed in favour of the plaintiff, as against the existing market price of Rs. Two Crores. To the utter dismay of the defendant, the plaintiff gave dealership for twin cities to Magineti Chandraiah on 1-10-2008 and thereby committed breach to the agreement executed in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff did not allow the defendant to sell the products of the plaintiff and gave a paper publication on 20" of October, 2008 in all the popular dailies circulated in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, that the defendant was no more the authorized dealer of the plaintiff. The defendant was put to a great deal of loss of his reputation which he enjoyed for several decades. The defendant also suffered a monetary loss of Rs.One Crore on account of the breach committed by the plaintiff to the agreement executed in favour of the defendant. The defendant tentatively estimates the loss of goodwill and damage to his reputation to a tune of Rs.50 lakhs and reserves his right to file an additional written statement with some more additional facts and pleas. 3) The defendant never committed breach of the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008 executed in favour of the plaintiff, but that is inter-linked and inter-twined with the terms of the agreement dated 1-8-2008 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Thus, the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008 cannot be read in isolation of the agreement dated 1-8-2008 and both are required to be read conjointly and enforced simultaneously.4) The plaintiff di ) The plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and by deliberately Suppressing the agreement dated 1-8-2008 executed in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff j : seeking the equitable and discretionary reliefs of specific perk mare ¢ Pecific performance and injunction, ‘Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek these two equitable reliefs. 5) There is no truth in the plaint averments that the plaintiff's representative came to the residence of the defendant and requested to come to the istrar’s office for registration of the sale deed and that the defendant refused to do so. The plaintiff fabricated these false averments in order to create a fictitious cause of action to the plaint. sub-r 6) The plaintiff having committed breach to the agreement dated 1-8-2008 is not entitled to enjoy the fruits of the suit schedule property which the plaintiff obtained for a song under the reasons and circumstances explained above. The defendant is entitled to seek the cancellation of the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008 since the same is vitiated by fraud and not entitled to the reliefs of misrepresentation. Consequently, the plaint specific performance of the agreement of sale cum GPA and also the discretionary relief of perpetual injunction as sought for by him. 7) The defendant got issued a legal notice dated 30-11-2008 through his Advocate to the plaintiff calling upon the plaintiff to adhere to the terms of the agreement dated 1-8-2008 and despite receipt of the said notice by speed post on 3-12-2008, the plaintiff failed to honour the agreement, but filed the false suit with frivolous and twisted facts. By forseeing the legal action from the defendant, the plaintiff got made the deposit amount of Rs. 5,01,600/- on 8-12-2008 in SBH by way of challan in order to create an ostensible false evidence for the plaintiff that he deposited that amount towards stamp duty in pursuance of the agreement of sale cum GPA. The same was ingenuously engineered by the plaintiff in order to make preparation for a defence to the legal action rightfully taken by the defendant. All other plaint averments which are not specifically traversed are deemed to have been denied by the defendant.8) The plaintiff having concocted a bundle of falsehood in the plaint is not K any relief, much less, the two reliefs sought in the plaint. The re, liable to be dismissed in toto with exemplary costs and, on to suffer a decree for the reliefs sought entitled to sex the other hand, the plaintif? is liable by the defendant by way of the counter-cla 9) The defendant is puting forth the following counter claims against the plaintiff. 4) Counter-claim for damages for the loss of business and loss of reputation and goodwill suffered by the defendant, ») Counter-claim for cancellation of the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008, 10) Cause of Action: The Cause of action for the counterclaims arose ‘on 1-10-2008 on which date the plaintiff committed breach to the agreement dated 1-8-2008 by giving the dealership to Magineti Chandraiah and on all Subsequent dates on which the plaintiff failed to give regard to the areement despite the repeated requests made by the defendant including 'ssuance of a legal notice dated 30-11-2008 by speed post which was received by the plaintiff on 3-12-2008 and on 20-10-2008 the date on which the paper publication was made by the plaintiff and from that date onwards and at twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad where the defendant is having his shops, within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court agreement cum tation: The counter-claim for cancellation of the 's execution and GPA dated 1-8-2008 is within three years from the date of it the counter-claim for damages and the loss of business and goodwill and reputation of the defendant is within three years from 1-10-2008 on which date the plaintiff granted the dealership to Magineti Chandriah in violation of the agreement dated 1-8-2008 and on 20-10-2008 on which date the plaintiff made a paper publication affecting the reputation of the defendant. 1)COURT FEE: I} Recovery of damages: a) For the recovery of loss sus plaintiff to the agreement dated 1- of reputation and goodwill ined due to the breach committed by the 2008. ..22-+«=RS.1,00,00,000 Rs, 50,00,000 ~RS.1,50,00,000 42s paid under Section 20 of AP CF & An ad-valeoram Court fee of Rs.! SV Act. ncellation of the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008. alco amount mentioned in the agreement of sale cum-GPA is Wye 10,000) upon which,a Court fee of Rebs 26/-..is paid under Section 37 of AP CF & SV Act. 9" G L0m%hob | A total Court fee of Rs 2Qte€Stfris paid vide receipt No........-0f SB ‘Ale No. seseewof SBH, RAV Cou Branch and the receipt is affixed herewith SY Re i herewith. BS I evolu 3,54, 82 ‘on: Jurisdiction for the purpose of valuation of the Court fee is Rs. mn of this Court. UL J Two Crores which is within the pecuniary jurisdi and also the agreement of sale cum GPA ouse of the defendant at Nanakram Guda of which is within the territorial ‘The agreement dated 1-8-2008 dated 15-9-2008 were executed at the bi Sherlingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy Dist jurisdiction of this Court. PRAYE On the strength of the facts stated above, the defendant humbly prays the Court (0 dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs and to decree the counter- ‘laims of the defendant with costs by granting the following reliefs, viz 2) By way of granting a decree in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Fifty Lakhs) along with interest therein at 12% per annum from 1-10-2008 till the date of realization;b) By granting a decree for cancellation of the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 15-9-2008 and consequently directing the plaintiff to enforce the ‘ment dated 1-8-2008. ©) To award the costs of the counter-claims; efs which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and 4) To pass such other relief or re in the fi Be pleased to consider, prope cts and circumstances of the DEFENDANT VERIFICATION The above facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and they are read over and explained to me and I having understood the same, affirmed them to be true and correct and affixed my signature on this the ..........day of January, 2009. DEFENDANT Affirmed before me. Counsel for the defendant. of documents: 1. Agreement dated 1.8.2008 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant 2. Office copy legal notice dated 30.11.2008 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Be pleased to consider DEFENDANT VERIFICATION The above facts are true to the best of n ¢ and belief and they are read ving understood the same, affirmed them to be day of January, 2009. over and explained to me and I ha true and correct and affixed my signature on this the DEFENDANT