Anil Kumar Agrawal vs Mrs Nasira Begum Alias Mrs.Nasra Begum & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on : 24.07.2026
Judgment delivered on : 16.10.2026
Judgment uploaded on : 17.10.2026
+ CS(COMM) 187/2022 & I.A. 4770/2022 I.A. 11515/2022 I.A.
17921/2022 I.A. 19975/2022 I.A. 20735/2022 I.A. 20736/2022 I.A.
9121/2024 I.A. 47243/2024 I.A. 6667/2025 I.A. 8262/2025 I.A.
434/2026 O.A. 77/2024
ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Adv. Mr.
Akshat Nayyar and Mr. Aman
Vasisth, Advs.
versus
MRS NASIRA BEGUM ALIAS MRS.NASRA BEGUM & ORS.
.....Defendants
Through: Mr. Zia-Ul-Islam, Adv. for D-1
Mr. Anuj Handa, Mr. Samya Handa,
Mr. Ayush Vishwakarma, Mr.
Shubham Pandey, Advs. for D-2, D-3
and D-5
Mr. Samar Khan, Mr. Tanvir Nayar
and Mr. Abhishek Bakshi, Advs. for
D-4
Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi and Mr. Tanishq
Kashyap, Advs. for D-6 and D-7
Mr. Vidit Gupta and Mr. Trivesh
Sharma, Advs. for D-9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 1 of 44
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
I.A. No. 1021/2022, I.A. No. 10197/2022 & I.A. No. 11515/2022
1. At the outset, it is noted that the updated amended memo of parties
recording the appropriate deletions and impleadment of parties has not been
placed on record. The Plaintiff has handed over an amended memo of
parties dated 07.09.2026, after the judgment had been reserved. The parties
have been referred to in the judgment in terms of the said amended memo
of parties. The Plaintiff is directed to place the said amended memo of
parties on record.
I.A. No. 1021/2022 has been filed by Defendant No. 2, Defendant
No. 3 and Defendant No. 5, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], seeking deletion from the array of parties.
2. I.A. No. 10197/2022 has been filed by Defendant No. 4 under Order
1 Rule 10 of CPC, seeking deletion from the array of parties.
3. I.A. No. 11515/2022 has been filed by Defendant No. 6 and
Defendant No. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, seeking deletion from the
array of parties.
OVERVIEW OF THE DEFENDANTS [AS PER THE AMENDED MEMO OF
PARTIES DATED 07.09.2026]
4. Defendant No. 1/Nasira Begum was the absolute owner of the
commercial property being Shop No. N-4, measuring about 1165 square
feet on the ground floor, with an inside Mezzanine and Balcony measuring
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 2 of 44
800 square feet, situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001 [‘suit
property’].
4.1. Defendant No. 2/Shakil Ahmed and Defendant No. 5/Md. Shanwaz
Ali are the relatives of Defendant No. 1.
4.2. Defendant No. 3/Md. Mohsin Qureshi is the son of Defendant No. 1.
Defendant No. 4/Md. Sohab Ahmed Qureshi is the son-in-law of Defendant
No. 1.
4.3. Defendant No. 6/Mr. Rajendra Singh Kochar, Defendant No. 7/Mr.
1
Sahib Singh and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain [former Defendant ] are
property brokers, who introduced the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 to 5.
4.4. The original plaint is dated 22.03.2022. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 filed
their applications for deletion from the array of parties in 2022. The
Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended plaint dated 07.04.2025 to incorporate
allegations justifying the impleadment of a newly added party M/s
Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd., and to plead additional facts qua the
Applicants/Defendants.
2
M/s Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as Defendant No. 8
vide order dated 08.04.2025.
FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PLAINT
5. It is averred that the Plaintiff, who is a resident of Patna, Bihar, while
searching for a property in Delhi, was approached by Defendant Nos. 6, 7
1
Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain was impleaded as Defendant No. 9 in the original plaint dated 22.03.2022
[Later became Defendant No. 8 as per the amended memo dated 26.08.2022, after the death of the
erstwhile Defendant No. 2, i.e., Md. Kamal Qureshi]. The said Defendant’s application for deletion was
allowed by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 14.02.2024. O.A. No. 77/2024 has been preferred by the
Plaintiff challenging the deletion of Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain, and the said Chamber appeal is pending.
2
Defendant No. 9, as per the amended memo of parties dated 13.04.2024.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 3 of 44
and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain, who represented that the suit property
was available for sale, free from all encumbrances of any sort, and that
Defendant No. 1 was the absolute owner thereof. It is stated that in the past
as well, the Plaintiff has transacted with Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 for sale
3
and purchase of immovable properties .
5.1. It is stated that after several meetings and negotiations with all the
Defendants, Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff
for a consideration amount of Rs. 7,00,00,000/-. It is alleged that the parties
agreed that the Plaintiff would pay the entire consideration of Rs.
7,00,00,000/- before executing the agreement to sell. It is stated that in
furtherance of the said agreement, the Plaintiff paid the full consideration
amount of Rs. 6,93,00,000/- to Defendant No. 1, in four tranches in July,
4
2018 through bank transfers, after deduction of TDS of Rs. 7,00,000/-. It is
stated that thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 executed an agreement
to sell dated 01.08.2018 [‘2018 ATS’] recording the terms and conditions of
sale.
5.2. It is averred that the symbolic possession of the suit property was
handed over to the Plaintiff vide Symbolic Possession letter dated
01.08.2018, since the property was in actual physical possession of a tenant.
It is further stated that Defendant No. 1 issued an Attornment Letter dated
01.08.2018 to the tenant, directing the tenant to remit future rent to the
Plaintiff.
5.3. It is averred that Defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed in
pursuance of the 2018 ATS. It is stated that despite the Attornment Letter
3
At paragraph no. 34(f) of the amended plaint.
4
Tax Deducted at Source
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 4 of 44
dated 01.08.2018, the Plaintiff did not receive any rent from the tenant, nor
was the tenant’s security deposit transferred to the Plaintiff by Defendant
No. 1. It is stated that in March, 2019, upon physically inspecting the suit
property, the Plaintiff learnt that HDFC Bank had pasted a notice issued
5
under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 , revealing that the suit
property was not free from encumbrances.
5.4. It is stated that the Plaintiff, vide legal notice dated 20.07.2021, called
upon all the Defendants to refund the principal amount of Rs. 6,93,00, 000/-
along with interest. It is stated that on 28.10.2021, the Plaintiff filed a
6
criminal complaint with the EOW New Delhi, which is under ongoing
investigation.
5.5. In these pleaded facts, the suit has been filed in March, 2022 for
refund of the principal sum of Rs. 6,93,00,000/- paid over to Defendant No.
1 along with pre-suit interest at 12% with effect from 01.08.2018 till
01.03.2022 and pendente lite interest from the date of institution. The
Plaintiff has stated that due to the COVID pandemic, he could not approach
the Court immediately and therefore seeks exclusion of the period
commencing from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for computation of limitation.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
Submissions by Applicants/Defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 5 in I.A. No. 1021 of 2022
6. Mr. Anuj Handa, learned counsel for the said Applicants/Defendants,
stated that the 2018 ATS was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant
No. 1, and the said Defendants were neither a party to the 2018 ATS nor
had they received any part of the consideration amount from the Plaintiff.
5
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
6
Economic Offence Wing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 5 of 44
He stated that the entire consideration was paid to Defendant No. 1. He
stated that the Plaintiff has no cause of action against the said
Applicants/Defendants.
6.1. He stated that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had signed the 2018 ATS only
in the capacity of attesting witnesses, while Defendant No. 5 was not even
an attesting witness to the 2018 ATS. He stated that the said
Applicants/Defendants have been impleaded only because they are the
relatives of Defendant No. 1.
6.2. He stated that the said Applicants/Defendants are not necessary for
the final decision of the subject matter involved in the suit. In this regard, he
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi v.
7
Iyyamperumal . He stated that in these facts the said
Applicants/Defendants ought to be deleted from the array of parties as they
are neither necessary nor proper parties.
Submissions by Applicant/Defendant No. 4 in I.A. No. 10197 of 2022
7. Mr. Samar Khan, learned counsel for Defendant No. 4, stated that the
said Defendant is neither a party nor an attesting witness to the 2018 ATS,
and the said Defendant did not receive any part of the consideration amount
from the Plaintiff in furtherance of the same.
7.1. He stated that none of the documents, including the 2018 ATS filed
by the Plaintiff, bear the name and signature of Defendant No. 4, in any
capacity whatsoever. He stated it is an admitted fact that Defendant No. 4
was never the owner or in any way related to the suit property, which forms
the subject of the alleged ATS.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 6 of 44
7.2. He stated that as per the doctrine of privity of contract, no relief can
be sought by a person against a party with whom there is no contractual
obligation or who is a stranger to a contract. He stated that there is no
business relationship or privity of contract between Defendant No. 4 and the
Plaintiff. He stated that since there is no contract, there cannot be any relief
which can be sought by the Plaintiff against the said Defendant, and
therefore Defendant No. 4 is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the
suit.
7.3. He stated that there is not even a single averment in the plaint which
is specific to Defendant No. 4, except the wrongful use of the term
‘Defendants’ in making general allegations just to wrongly include all the
Defendants and make substantive pleadings. He stated that the said
Defendant at best could only have been made a witness in the trial.
7.4. He stated that the present suit is a simpliciter suit for recovery of
money, and there is no prayer for breach of any guarantee or assurance by
any Defendant. In the absence of such a prayer, the suit is not maintainable
against Defendant No. 4, and thus Defendant No. 4 ought to be deleted from
the array of parties.
Submissions by Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 in I.A. No. 11515 of 2022
8. Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 6 and 7,
stated that the entire consideration for the ATS has been paid by the
Plaintiff directly to Defendant No. 1, and no amount has been paid to the
said Defendants. He stated that since no cause of action has arisen against
the said Defendants, they are neither necessary nor proper parties.
7
2005 6 SCC 733
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 7 of 44
8.1. He stated that even as per the Plaintiff, no amount was paid to the
said Defendants either as consideration under the ATS or as brokerage. He
stated that in these facts, Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 ought to be deleted from
the array of parties.
8.2. He stated that the Plaintiff, having entered into the 2018 ATS and
paid a sum of Rs. 6,93,00,000/-, was bound to exercise basic due diligence
and is deemed to have notice of the title of Defendant No. 1 and/or any
charge over the property by virtue of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 [‘TP Act’]. The Plaintiff’s claim of having made the entire
payment even before execution of the said ATS, without verifying the
seller’s title, is therefore untenable.
8.3. He stated that the entire cause of action in the suit is vexatious. He
submitted that the Plaintiff has, indeed, acquired the suit property through
Defendant No. 8. He relied upon the submissions made by Defendant No. 1
in her written statement contending that the suit property, on the
instructions of the Plaintiff, has been sold to Defendant No. 8 in 2021, prior
to the institution of the present suit. Defendant No. 1 has referred to the
statements of Mr. Abhishek Kedia, the Director of Defendant No. 8. He
relied upon the contents of the written statement filed by Defendant No. 8,
which shows an existing commercial relationship between the Plaintiff and
his family members with Defendant No. 8, as well as entities controlled by
Mr. Abhishek Kedia.
8.4. He stated that Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 relied upon the documents
filed by Defendant No. 8 along with its written statement dated 07.05.2025
to contend that substantial amounts were transferred to Defendant No. 8
from persons and entities connected with the Plaintiff and his family. This is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 8 of 44
important in view of the comparatively low sales and profits of Defendant
No. 8, including sales of Rs. 45,82,000/- and a net profit of Rs. 5,61,462/- in
FY 2018-19, and the income of Mr. Abhishek Kedia of Rs. 12,26,121/- for
AY 2020-21, which prima facie do not indicate an independent financial
capacity of Defendant No. 8 or Mr. Abhishek Kedia to acquire the suit
property.
8.5. He stated that the bank statements disclose, inter alia, transfers from
Exclusive Store, the proprietorship concern of the Plaintiff’s son Mr.
Saksham Agrawal, to Defendant No. 8, including entries of Rs. 29,50,000/-
dated 18.07.2018 and Rs.9,20,000/- dated 23.04.2019 described as
‘TRF/EXCLUSIVE/SELF’. A further sum of approximately Rs. 96,15,000/-
was transferred from the proprietorship concern of Mr. Sakhsham Agrawal
to Defendant No. 8 between February and July 2019 and was thereafter
used by Defendant No. 8 to purchase the suit property. The bank statements
also disclose cash deposits by the proprietorship concern of Mr. Saksham
Agrawal into Defendant No. 8’s account.
8.6. He stated that the documents further disclose that Defendant No. 8
received approximately Rs. 1,23,35,000/- in June 2019 from another bank
account of Defendant No. 8, which has not been disclosed to the Court.
8.7. He stated that the documents further disclose that Rs.5,24,31,367/-
was shown by Defendant No. 8 as an advance under ‘Trade Payables’ from
M/s Niharika Retail Pvt. Ltd., whereas the latter’s financial statements
reflect the same as a loan. The ledger further records total transfers of
Rs.5,62,32,800/- from M/s Niharika Retail Pvt. Ltd. to Defendant No. 8 till
03.08.2019, which were utilised towards the suit property.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 9 of 44
8.8. He stated that the financial records also disclose transactions
involving M/s Niharika Holdings Pvt. Ltd., in which the Plaintiff, his son
and his wife collectively held 68.12% as on 31.03.2019 and in which the
Plaintiff was a director. Defendant No. 8’s audited financial statements
describe M/s Niharika Holdings Pvt. Ltd. as a related party/associate
concern. These records are material in assessing the relationship between
Mr. Abhishek Kedia, Defendant No. 8, and the Plaintiff’s family and the
source of funds flowing into Defendant No. 8.
8.9. He stated that approximately Rs. 96,25,000/- was advanced to
Defendant No. 8 by Mr. Vijay Kejriwal and Ms. Shashi Kejriwal.
Ms. Shashi Kejriwal is the sister of the Plaintiff’s wife; her son, Mr.
Shashank Kejriwal, has business dealings with the Plaintiff’s son and is a
shareholder in Niharika Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The connection of these
transactions with the wider network of persons and entities associated with
the Plaintiff is, therefore, also relevant.
8.10. He stated that the documents filed in CS(OS) 644/2019 also bear
upon the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the encumbrance over the suit property.
An email dated 17.08.2019 was sent from the email ID of Defendant No. 8
to [email protected], which is linked to the Plaintiff’s DIN in Niharika
Holdings Pvt. Ltd., informing him of a payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- to M/s
M.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through HDFC Bank. The accompanying letter on
Defendant No. 8’s letterhead records that the payment was made towards
the outstanding loan against the suit property and requests HDFC Bank to
release the title documents and issue a No-Dues Certificate. These
documents prima facie indicate that the Plaintiff, who was aware of the
outstanding loan/encumbrance over the suit property, was participating in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 10 of 44
redemption.
8.11. He stated that the constitution of Defendant No. 8 also requires
consideration. The documents disclose that Mr. Dilip Kumar Tibrewal, who
held 19.56% shares in Defendant No. 8, had been associated with the
Plaintiff for several years and was deputed at the Plaintiff’s Tanishq
showroom; his sons were also stated to be working at the Plaintiff’s Tanishq
showroom. Further, Mr. Umesh Tekriwal, whose wife is a shareholder in
Defendant No. 8, is a Director in Exclusive Brands Pvt. Ltd., a company
promoted by the Plaintiff’s son. These circumstances bear upon the
assertion that the shareholders of Defendant No. 8 were not independent of
the Plaintiff and his family. There are cross-holdings between shareholders
of Defendant No. 8 and companies controlled by the Plaintiff and his family
members.
8.12. He stated that Defendant No. 8’s Income Tax Return for F.Y. 2024-
25 mentions Mr. Abhishek Kedia’s mobile number, and the same number is
stated to have been used in online marketing material for the Tanishq Store,
Fraser Road, Patna, operated by M/s Flagship Store Pvt. Ltd., a company
promoted by the Plaintiff, his wife and his son. Therefore, it is hard to
believe the assertion that Mr. Abhishek Kedia and the Plaintiff were merely
business competitors, and it raises a question regarding the nature of
Mr. Abhishek Kedia’s association with the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 8.
Submissions by the Plaintiff
9. Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate and Mr. Akshat Nayyar, learned
counsel for the Plaintiff, stated that Applicants/Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 [hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Defendants’] are necessary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 11 of 44
and proper parties in the present suit, as without their presence issues cannot
be effectually and properly adjudicated.
9.1. He stated that the cause of action against the Applicants/Defendants
arose when the said Defendants falsely represented to the Plaintiff in the
year 2018 that the suit property has a clear title free from any
encumbrances, and is available for sale. He stated that the said Defendants
had knowledge of the fact that the suit property is under an encumbrance
with HDFC Bank and failed to disclose this fact to the Plaintiff.
9.2. He stated that the Defendants deliberately showed the Plaintiff
photocopies of the suit property documents with a view to induce
confidence in the transaction and represented, on the basis thereof, that the
suit property had a clean and clear title. At the time of execution of the 2018
ATS, photocopies of all relevant documents, including the Sale Deed and
the KYC documents of Defendant No. 1, were handed over to the Plaintiff
in the presence of all these Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants were
fully aware of the subject transaction and were privy to and had witnessed
the same from its very inception.
9.3. He stated that the cause of action arose when the Defendants
extended false assurances to the Plaintiff as regards clear title of the suit
property, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to execute the 2018 ATS, part with
the agreed consideration and defraud and cheat the Plaintiff.
8
9.4. He stated that Defendant Nos. 6, 7, and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain
have received payment in cash from the other Defendants, i.e., Defendant
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the subject transaction, which is the subject matter of
8
Averred at paragraph no. 11 of the reply filed by the Plaintiff to I.A. No. 1021/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 12 of 44
the 2018 ATS.
9.5. He stated that it is also a matter of record that an FIR bearing no.
1/2022 under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
has already been registered against all the Defendants.
9.6. He stated that thus the Defendants have been properly impleaded as
parties to the present suit and that they are jointly and severally liable to
refund the amount of consideration paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1,
along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. In these facts, he
stated that the captioned applications ought to be dismissed.
COURT’S FINDINGS
10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
I. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH NEWLY IMPLEADED
DEFENDANT NO. 8 [M/s EXCLUSIVE STORE PVT. LTD.]
11. Defendant No. 1 has filed her written statement dated 23.07.2022,
and asserted that the suit property has been sold to Defendant No. 8 in view
of the agreement to sell dated 24.07.2019 [‘2019 ATS’], on the instructions
of the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiff was fully aware of the
encumbrance on the suit property and he participated in the negotiations
with HDFC Bank for the release of the suit property from the mortgage. It is
stated that the Plaintiff represented to Defendant No. 1 that the amount
payable to HDFC Bank for redeeming the suit property has been arranged
by him through a separate entity, i.e., Defendant No. 8. It is stated that the
2019 ATS executed with Defendant No. 8 is in continuation of the 2018
ATS and forms part of one single transaction. It is stated that the sale deed
in favour of Defendant No. 8 stands executed on 07.01.2021, prior to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 13 of 44
filing of the suit and therefore, the present suit is to be dismissed for
pleading a vexatious cause of action.
12. Therefore, before this Court examines the cause of action pleaded in
the plaint against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, it would be apposite to first
examine the proximity of the relationship between the Plaintiff and his
family members on one hand with Defendant No. 8, its Director, Mr.
Abhishek Kedia, and the shareholders of Defendant No. 8 on the other
hand. The list of the relatives of the Plaintiff is annexed as Schedule- 1 to
this judgment.
13. M/s Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as Defendant No. 8
vide order dated 08.04.2025. The said company filed its written statement
dated 07.05.2025 through its Director, Mr. Abhishek Kedia, and has
disclosed that it was incorporated in the year 2013, when the Plaintiff’s son
Mr. Saksham Agrawal, was the promoter director. It is stated that both the
Plaintiff’s son Mr. Saksham Agrawal, and his wife Mrs. Beena Agrawal,
were shareholders of this company. It is stated, however, that subsequently
the shares were sold by the said family members to different individuals,
including Mr. Abhishek Kedia. It is stated that currently neither the Plaintiff
nor his family members have any involvement in this company.
14. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7, on 22.05.2025, filed a Short Note setting out
their analysis of the common transactions reflected in the bank accounts of
the Plaintiff, his family members and the commercial entities controlled by
them with the commercial entities controlled by Mr. Abhishek Kedia. The
said Short Note is supported by an affidavit dated 19.05.2026.
Defendant No. 8 was granted an opportunity vide orders dated
24.04.2026 and 29.05.2026 to file a reply thereto. Defendant No. 8 has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 14 of 44
elected not to file any reply, as recorded in the order dated 24.07.2026.
15. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 have, inter alia, analysed the financials of
Defendant No. 8 and stated that the said Defendant No. 8 had a nominal
turnover running into lakhs during the relevant financial year 2018-19,
when the payment was made to HDFC Bank. It has been demonstrated that
Defendant No. 8 received a sum of Rs. 5,62,32,800/- from M/s Niharika
Retails Pvt. Ltd. till 03.08.2019.
M/s Niharika Retails Pvt. Ltd. is stated to be owned and controlled by
the Plaintiff’s wife Mrs. Beena Agrawal.
It is asserted that the aforesaid funds were utilised by Defendant No.
8 for the purchase of the suit property.
16. In view of the stand taken by Defendant Nos. 1, 6 and 7, this Court
had sought clarification from the Plaintiff as regards his relationship with
Defendant No. 8 and more specifically, Mr. Abhishek Kedia, the Director of
Defendant No. 8.
9
The Plaintiff subsequently filed an application seeking impleadment
of M/s Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd. as a proper party and admitted that his
family members have a commercial relationship with Defendant No. 8. The
Plaintiff also admitted that Defendant No. 8 was promoted by his son and
wife; however, he stated that currently his family members have no role in
the said entity. The Plaintiff has denied that the purchase of the suit
property by Defendant No. 8 through Mr. Abhishek Kedia was at his
instance.
17. However, the written statement of Defendant No. 8 also discloses
9
Paragraph No. 8 and 9 of I.A. 9236/2025 allowed on 08.04.2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 15 of 44
10
that the Plaintiff and his family members have had an established
commercial relationship with Mr. Abhishek Kedia and the commercial
entities controlled by him. The parties have, inter se, advanced and received
monies, and financial transactions between them remain outstanding.
18. The commercial entities involved include M/s Niharika Retails Pvt.
Ltd., M/s Niharika Holdings Pvt. Ltd., M/s Flagship Store Pvt. Ltd. and M/s
Exclusive Stores [a proprietorship concern of Mr. Saksham Agrawal].
The summary of the details of the shareholders and directors of these
commercial entities evidencing the connection between Plaintiff and
Mr. Abhishek Kedia, as per the written statement of Defendant No. 8 dated
07.05.2025 and Short Note of Defendant Nos. 6 and 7, is annexed as
Schedule- 2 to this judgment.
19. The Plaintiff has filed its replication to the written statement filed by
Defendant No. 8, and has admitted the existence of a commercial
11
relationship between these parties. He also admitted that the Plaintiff and
his family members raise finances from Defendant No. 8 and commercial
entities controlled by Mr. Abhishek Kedia. It is stated, however, that the
Plaintiff had no information/knowledge about the 2019 ATS executed
between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 8 and characterised the same
as an individual transaction between Defendant Nos. 1 and 8.
20. The Plaintiff also amended the plaint in the year 2025 to incorporate,
inter alia, paragraph nos. 34(d), (e) and (h). The Plaintiff, in amended
paragraphs 34(d) and (e), admitted that Defendant No. 8 was initially
promoted by his son Mr. Saksham Agrawal and that it has an existing
10
Mr. Saksham Agrawal- son, Mrs. Beena Agrawal- wife, Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal- HUF
11
At paragraph no. 11 of its written statement dated 07.05.2025
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 16 of 44
commercial relationship with the said Defendant No. 8 and other
commercial entities controlled and managed by Mr. Abhishek Kedia. The
Plaintiff, however, denied any control over Defendant No. 8. At amended
paragraph no. 34(h), the Plaintiff has sought to reserve his right to seek
cancellation of the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of
Defendant No. 8. No such relief was, however, sought in the plaint, either at
the time of amendment or thereafter, and no relief for cancellation of the
sale deed dated 07.01.2021 has been claimed till date.
21. The financial transactions disclosed in the written statement of
Defendant No. 8, however, demonstrate a continuing financial nexus
between the Plaintiff, his family members, Defendant No. 8 and
Mr. Abhishek Kedia. The transactions relied upon by Defendant No. 8
disclose inter-se movement of funds between these parties and the
commercial entities controlled by them. A summary of these transactions
discerned from the written statement of Defendant No. 8, which is not
disputed by the Plaintiff in the replication, is as under: -
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 17 of 44
Inter se transactions of Mr. Abhishek Kedia [director of Defendant No. 8] and
Defendant No. 8 with the Plaintiff and his family members that are pending
Sr.
No.
Financial Year/
F. Y. [including
Payment made
Payment made
Amount Status
by
to
the month]
1. 2015-2016
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mr. Saksham
Agrawal
Rs. 20,00,000 Not Paid
[December 2015]
2. 2016-2017
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mr. Saksham
Agrawal
Rs. 23,50,000 Not Paid
[January and
February 2017]
3. 2017-2018
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mr. Anil Kumar
Agrawal HUF
Rs. 9,75,000 Not Paid
[October 2017
and March 2018]
4. 2018-2019
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mr. Anil Kumar
Agrawal HUF
Rs. 22,75,000 Not Paid
[March 2019]
5. 2019-2020 [June
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mr. Anil Kumar
HUF
Rs. 23,95,000 Not Paid
19 and March
2020]
6. 2019-2020
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mrs. Beena
Agrawal
Rs. 36,00,000 Not Paid
[January 2020]
7. 2019-2020 M/s Niharika
Retails Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd
Rs. 5,24,31,000
[Increased by
Rs.31,52,000 in
F.Y 2020-2021]
Total: Rs.
5,55,83,000 as
on 31.03.2021
As on
31.03.2025,
an amount
of Rs.
2,83,58,000
is still due.
8. 2022-2023 M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Flagship
Store Pvt. Ltd.
[Director Mr.
Saksham
Agrawal & Mrs.
Beena Agrawal]
Rs. 1,89,00,000
[as unsecured
loan @6% p.a.]
Not Paid
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 18 of 44
Inter se transactions of Mr. Abhishek Kedia [director of Defendant No. 8] and
Defendant No. 8 with the Plaintiff and his family members that have been repaid
Sr.
No.
Financial Year/
F. Y. [including
Payment made by Payment made
Amount Status
to
the month]
1. 2014-2015
M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Saksham
Agrawal
Rs. 15,00,000 Repaid in
February
2017
[December 2014
and March 2015]
2. 2015-2016 [May
Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Mr. Anil Kumar
Agrawal
Rs. 15,00,000 Repaid in
F.Y. 2015-
2016
3. 2016-2017 M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
2015]
M/s Niharika
Holding Pvt.
Ltd.
Rs. 24,50,000
[as unsecured
loan at interest
@ 6% p.a.]
Repaid in
December
2021.
4. 2018-2019
M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
Mrs. Beena
Agrawal
Rs. 2,40,80,000
[advance of
Trade Payables]
Repaid in
F.Y. 2019-
2020
[between
November
2019 and
March
2020]
5. 2018-2019 M/s Niharika
Retails Pvt. Ltd
[February 2019]
M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
Rs. 1,67,47,000 Repaid in
F.Y. 2019-
2020
[November
2019 to
March
2020]
6. 2018-2019 [July
2018]
M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Exclusive
[Proprietorship
of Mr. Saksham
Agrawal]
Rs. 4,90,000 Repaid in
F.Y. 2018-
2019
[February
2019]
7. 2019-2020 M/s Exclusive
Stores Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Exclusive
[Proprietorship
of Mr. Saksham
Agrawal]
Rs. 1,55,60,000 Repaid in
F.Y. 2019-
2020
8. 2021-2022 Mr. Abhishek
Kedia
Rs. 59,50,000 Repaid in
F.Y. 2021-
2022
Mr. Anil Kumar
Agrawal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 19 of 44
22. The aforesaid transactions assume significance when considered
alongside the admissions made by the Plaintiff himself regarding his
commercial relationship with Defendant No. 8 and Mr. Abhishek Kedia.
The intermingling of funds between the Plaintiff, his family members,
Defendant No. 8 and entities controlled by Mr. Abhishek Kedia lends
support to the stand of Defendant Nos. 1, 6 and 7 that these parties, i.e.
Plaintiff and Defendant No. 8, were not strangers to each other, but had an
established and continuing commercial and financial relationship.
23. Defendant No. 8 and Mr. Abhishek Kedia admittedly carry on
business at Patna, as does the Plaintiff, who operates a Tanishq showroom
there. In this background, the fact that Defendant No. 8, who has no
apparent connection with Delhi, acquired the very same property that the
Plaintiff sought to purchase raises questions.
This assumes further significance in light of the commercial and
financial transactions between the Plaintiff’s family, family-controlled
entities and Defendant No. 8, particularly during 2019, when the mortgage
with HDFC Bank was redeemed, and the suit property was purchased under
the 2019 ATS.
The fact that Defendant No. 8 also runs a Tanishq showroom at the
suit property, like the Plaintiff in Patna, is another circumstance that, in this
Court's considered opinion, does not appear to be a mere coincidence.
24. The timing of such transactions lends substantial support to
Defendant No. 1’s assertion that the sale of the suit property in favour of
Defendant No. 8 was not an independent transaction between Defendant
Nos. 1 and 8, but was undertaken on the instructions of the Plaintiff. The
submission of the Applicants/Defendants that the Plaintiff and his family
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 20 of 44
members, Defendant No. 8 and Mr. Abhishek Kedia, are related parties is
therefore, ex-facie plausible.
25. In this background, the case setup in the plaint is ex-facie vexatious.
The suit should be rejected on this ground alone [Re: Aniruddha Dutta v.
12
Bhawani Shankar Basu and Santosh Kumar Jain v. Bahadur Singh
13
Jain ].
II. THE APPLICANTS/DEFENDANTS ARE NEITHER NECESSARY NOR
PROPER PARTIES
26. The discussion under this heading is independent of the finding of
vexatious plaint hereinabove.
27. Before this Court examines the maintainability of the reliefs sought
by the Applicants/Defendants in these applications for deletion from the
array of parties, it would be appropriate to first examine the cause of action
pleaded in the plaint qua the Applicants/Defendants and the stand taken by
Defendant Nos. 1 and 8 in their written statement.
28. The Plaintiff, who is a resident of Patna, Bihar, was keen to purchase
a commercial property in Delhi. Defendant No. 1 was the absolute owner of
the suit property having purchased it vide sale deed dated 13.12.2011.
29. The copy of the sale deed dated 13.12.2011 has been filed on record
by the Plaintiff. The said deed shows that the suit property was initially sold
by the Union of India to M/s. Motor and General Finance Ltd. vide
Certificate of Sale dated 05.09.1986. M/s. Motor and General Finance Ltd.
executed a registered General Power of Attorney [‘GPA’] in favour of Mr.
12
2012 (127) DRJ 46(DB) [Paragraph No. 28]
13
CM(M) 82/2019 dated 18.01.2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 21 of 44
Chetan Gupta, who sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 25.02.2002 to
four persons, i.e., Smt. Daya Wati, Smt. Madhu Aggarwal, Smt. Lalita
Aggarwal, and Smt. Rageeni Aggarwal. Thereafter, the said four co-owners
sold the property to M/s. M.K. Oversees Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deed dated
23.12.2009. Then, the property was sold by M/s. M.K. Oversees Pvt. Ltd. to
Defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 13.12.2011.
29.1. Thus, the chain of title includes four [4] title documents, i.e.,
Certificate of Sale dated 05.09.1986, sale deed dated 25.02.2002, sale deed
dated 23.12.2009 and sale deed dated 13.12.2011.
30. The Plaintiff states that he was provided with photocopies of the title
documents and, after satisfying himself with respect to the title of
Defendant No. 1, he agreed to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs.
7,00,00,000/-. It is stated that the Plaintiff remitted a sum of Rs.
14
6,93,00,000/- to Defendant No. 1 through four [4] bank transfers in July,
2018 and withheld Rs. 7,00,000/- towards TDS to be deposited with the
Income Tax Department [‘IT Department’]. It is stated that in this manner
the entire sale consideration stood paid to Defendant No. 1 as on
24.07.2018. The proof of deposit of TDS with the IT Department is not
available on record. And, there is no submission that the amount of
Rs. 7,00,000/- was indeed deposited with the IT Department. It is stated that
thereafter, on 01.08.2018, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 executed a
written agreement to sell, i.e., the 2018 ATS. It is stated that the symbolic
possession of the suit property was handed over by Defendant No. 1 vide
letter dated 01.08.2018, and a letter of attornment of the same date was also
issued to the tenant with a direction to remit future payment of rent to the
14
Details of transfer set out in paragraph no. 13 of the amended plaint
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 22 of 44
Plaintiff. It is, however, a matter of record that rent was never remitted by
the tenant to the Plaintiff.
31. The Plaintiff states that Defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale
deed. It is stated that the Plaintiff learnt, for the first time, that the suit
property had been mortgaged with the HDFC Bank in March, 2019 and
realised he had been defrauded, as this fact was withheld from him. It is
stated that the Plaintiff elected to void the transaction, made oral requests to
the Defendants to refund the amount, and finally issued a legal notice dated
20.07.2021 seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 6,93,00,000/- with interest.
It is stated that the Plaintiff also filed a criminal complaint dated 28.10.2021
before the EOW, New Delhi, alleging fraud by the Defendants due to the
non-disclosure of the mortgage.
32. The Plaintiff impleaded Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and Mr. Abhinandan
Kumar Jain on the plea that they were property brokers, who introduced the
Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 and misrepresented that the suit property was
free from encumbrances. The Plaintiff impleaded Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 on
the plea that they were the relatives of Defendant No. 1 and had similarly
misrepresented to the Plaintiff that the property was free from
encumbrances, and these parties are interested parties in the said property.
The Plaintiff seeks refund of the amount of Rs. 6,93,00,000/- with interest
from all the Defendants jointly and severally.
The Plaintiff, therefore, expressly elected, on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
[‘Contract Act’], to void the transaction for the purchase of the suit property
under the 2018 ATS and sought a refund of the consideration amount of Rs.
6,93,00,000/- from Defendant No. 1 under Section 64 of the Contract Act,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 23 of 44
as pleaded.
The legal premise on which the Plaintiff seeks refund of the said
amount from Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain is not
set out in the plaint. The plaint contains a general plea that the said
Defendants have made themselves jointly and severally liable for the claim
of refund as they, along with Defendant No. 1, made false verbal
representations that the suit property is free from encumbrance.
33. As noted above, Defendant No. 1 has, in response, contended that she
has sold the property to Defendant No. 8 on the instructions of the Plaintiff
herein and therefore, the Plaintiff does not have a cause of action for
maintaining this suit for seeking refund of the payments made under the
2018 ATS.
34. Upon reading the written statements of Defendant No. 1 and the
15
documents filed by Defendant No. 8, the following facts are discernible:
i. The Plaintiff was, since the very beginning, aware that the suit
property was mortgaged with HDFC Bank.
ii. The Plaintiff negotiated with the HDFC Bank officials for the
release of the said property from mortgage.
iii. The Plaintiff informed Defendant No. 1 that the payment to
HDFC Bank for redemption of mortgage was proposed through a
bank account held by a distinct juristic entity. In this background,
it was the Plaintiff who introduced Defendant No. 8 through its
Director, Mr. Abhishek Kedia, to Defendant No. 1 for the purpose
of making payment to HDFC Bank.
15
in CS (OS) No. 644/2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 24 of 44
iv. HDFC Bank took possession of the suit property on 01.06.2019 in
pursuance of the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the
16
borrower and Defendant No. 1 being the mortgagor.
v. HDFC Bank agreed to release the suit property from mortgage
upon receipt of payment of Rs. 6,00,00,000/-.
vi. Defendant No. 1 executed an ATS on 24.07.2019 with Defendant
No. 8 through Mr. Abhishek Kedia. The said agreement was for a
sum of Rs. 6,01,01,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,01,000/- was to be
received by Defendant No. 1 and Rs. 6,00,00,000/- was to be paid
directly to HDFC Bank.
vii. The agreement to sell dated 24.07.2019 executed with Defendant
No. 8 is in continuation of the 2018 ATS and forms part of one
single transaction.
viii. Defendant No. 8 on 17.08.2019 directly made a payment of Rs.
5,94,00,000/- to HDFC Bank for release of mortgage against the
suit property. Defendant No. 8 addressed a letter to HDFC Bank
seeking a ‘No Dues Certificate’.
ix. Thereafter, on 02.09.2019, HDFC Bank released the original title
deeds of the suit property to Mr. Abhishek Kedia in the presence
of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 8 acknowledged receiving
possession of the suit property from HDFC Bank and Defendant
No. 1 on 02.09.2019. HDFC Bank also issued a letter recording
release of the charge on the suit property vide letter dated
16
M/s M.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 25 of 44
07.09.2019.
x. A sale deed dated 03.09.2019 was executed between Defendant
No. 8 through Mr. Abhishek Kedia and Defendant No. 1 through
her GPA; however, the same was not presented for registration.
xi. Defendant No. 8 through its Director, Mr. Abhishek Kedia, sent a
legal notice to Defendant No. 1 to perform the 2019 ATS.
Defendant No. 8, thereafter, filed a separate suit CS (OS)
644/2019 seeking specific performance. Summons were issued to
Defendant No. 1 and her attorney, Mr. Gulfam, who had executed
the 2019 ATS. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance in the said
suit through her counsel. Without filing any written statement,
Defendant No. 1, through her attorney, Mr. Gulfam, entered into a
deed of settlement with Defendant No. 8 on 26.02.2020. A sale
deed was executed on 07.01.2021 by Defendant No. 1 herself in
favour of Defendant No. 8. In this background, CS (OS) 644/2019
was withdrawn by Defendant No. 8 on 12.02.2021 after recording
that the disputes had been amicably resolved.
35. In contrast, there are gaping holes in the case set up by the Plaintiff in
the plaint.
36. The facts pleaded in the plaint show that after execution of the 2018
ATS, the only written evidence relied upon by the Plaintiff as regards its
correspondence with Defendant No. 1 [and other Appellants/Defendants] is
the legal notice dated 20.07.2021 and the criminal complaint dated
28.10.2021. There is no written evidence for the intervening period of three
[3] years. This gap is significant in view of the case pleaded by Defendant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 26 of 44
No. 1 and Defendant No. 8. In this regard, it may be observed that there is a
deafening silence for the intervening period of 2019-2021 in the case set up
by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff would have this Court believe that, despite
having paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 6,93,00,000/-, and on
receiving no rent, and learning about HDFC Bank, he made no written
protest or communication calling upon Defendant No. 1 to perform its
obligations under the 2018 ATS during 2018, 2019 or 2020. In this Court’s
considered opinion, the case set up by the Plaintiff fails to inspire any
confidence.
37. Significantly, in the intervening period 2019-2021, when there is no
written evidence of any follow-up by the Plaintiff with Defendant No. 1,
Defendant No. 8 has relied upon written evidence which shows active
collaboration between Defendant No. 1, HDFC Bank and Defendant No. 8
for having the suit property released from mortgage, filing of a civil suit
before this Court and execution of the sale deed dated 07.01.2021.
38. Also, considering that the Plaintiff, his son and his wife have a
continuing commercial relationship with Mr. Abhishek Kedia, the Director
of Defendant No. 8 since the year 2015 and till date, lends credence to the
stand taken by Defendant No. 1 in her written statement. Defendant No. 8,
in its written statement, discloses the extent of the financial transactions
between the Plaintiff, his family members, commercial entities controlled
by him, Mr. Abhishek Kedia and commercial entities controlled by Mr.
Abhishek Kedia. The number of financial transactions between the two is
numerous and substantial, running into crores of rupees, as has already been
established hereinabove.
39. Thus, if the timeline, from 2019-2021, of the transaction between
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 27 of 44
Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 8 is placed between Plaintiff’s 2018
ATS to its first written evidence of legal notice dated 20.07.2021, it lends
further credence to the stand taken by Defendant No. 1 that her actions in
2019 of entering into 2019 ATS and execution of the sale deed dated
07.01.2021 with Defendant No. 8 was under the instructions of the Plaintiff
and in furtherance of the 2018 ATS appears logical and plausible.
40. Furthermore, it is significant to note that the Plaintiff in the original
plaint failed to plead that the suit property has been sold by Defendant No.
1 to Defendant No. 8. The plaint is conspicuously silent on the aspect of the
sale. The plaint only seeks refund and fails to mention that the property has
been sold. Even to a pointed query from the Court on the first date of
hearing in this suit, i.e., 29.03.2022, when the Court enquired as to why a
relief for specific performance had not been sought, the Plaintiff stated that
since the suit property is under encumbrance, the only remedy available to
the Plaintiff is to seek a money decree for refund of the sale consideration
paid along with interest. The relevant paragraph no. 5 of the said order reads
as under:
“5. It is in these circumstances, counsel submits, that the present suit has
come to be filed on 23.03.2022. It is submitted that aside from the fact that
during the pandemic, under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, limitation
for filing of suits stood in abeyance, in any case, the cause of action in the
present case arose on 25.03.2019 and the suit is therefore within limitation.
It is argued that considering that the subject premises is under encumbrance,
the plaintiff was left only with the remedy of seeking a money decree for
refund of the sale consideration paid alongwith interest.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
41. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said stand of the Plaintiff
before the Court was misleading on 29.03.2022. Defendant No. 1 has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 28 of 44
already stated that the suit property was sold to Defendant No. 8 vide sale
deed dated 07.01.2021 at the instance of the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the
submission of Defendant No. 1, even a perusal of the legal notice dated
17
20.07.2021 [at paragraph no. 11 ] shows that the Plaintiff acknowledges
that he was aware since the year 2021 about the sale in favour of Defendant
No. 8.
42. The Plaintiff’s action of not immediately approaching the Court in
the year 2021 when it allegedly learnt about the sale of the suit property in
favour of Defendant No. 8, despite having paid the entire consideration of
Rs. 6,93,00,000/- under the 2018 ATS to Defendant No. 1, does not stand to
reason and is contrary to the ordinary course which an aggrieved party
would have adopted. The Plaintiff’s action of leisurely approaching the
Court in March, 2022, for only seeking refund and not seeking cancellation
of the sale deed dated 07.01.2021 in this suit also evidences an act contrary
to the ordinary course. The Plaintiff’s act of not seeking cancellation of the
sale deed lends credence to the submission of Defendant No. 1 that the sale
deed dated 07.01.2021 was executed under the instructions of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the sale deed to the Court at the hearing
dated 29.03.2022 despite a pointed query also evidences mala fide.
43. The Plaintiff has amended the suit and filed an amended plaint on
07.04.2025, wherein, at newly inserted paragraph 34(h), it is pleaded that
the Plaintiff reserves its right to seek cancellation of the sale deed dated
07.01.2021. The said pleading is hogwash, as the said prayer was available
to the Plaintiff on the date when the initial plaint was filed, and the Plaintiff
17
11. That due to the ongoing pandemic, my client was not able to keep a track of the situation. Later, after
seeing the board of some firm on the above said property, my client came to know that the property has
been transferred to a third party.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 29 of 44
consciously elected not to pray for the said relief and even while amending
the plaint, the Plaintiff has failed to take this stand.
44. The omission of the Plaintiff to plead its knowledge about the sale
18
deed dated 07.01.2021 standing in favour of Defendant No. 8, seek its
cancellation and the omission to plead his commercial relationship with
Defendant No. 8 as well as Mr. Abhishek Kedia all give substance to the
submission of Defendant No. 1 that the sale deed dated 07.01.2021 was
executed under the instructions of the Plaintiff.
45. Upon perusal of the documents filed with the plaint and the
documents relied upon by Defendant No. 8, it is apparent that the 2019 ATS
set up by Defendant No. 8 is a continuation of the 2018 ATS set up by the
Plaintiff and forms part of a single transaction of sale.
46. The stand taken by the Plaintiff that it was not aware of the mortgage
of the suit property with HDFC Bank when it entered into the 2018 ATS
with Defendant No. 1 and made payment of the sale consideration is prima
facie implausible. As noted at paragraph no. 29 of this judgment, the chain
of title of the suit property in favour of Defendant No. 1 comprised of four
[4] title deeds, which the Plaintiff admits were lying deposited with HDFC
Bank. It is the legal obligation of a proposed buyer to exercise due diligence
and satisfy itself with respect to the clear title of the seller, which
necessarily includes inspection of the original title documents through
which the seller claims title, and verification of the existence of the
registered title documents from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar
and unregistered documents such as allotment letter, etc. from the
18
Executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 30 of 44
concerned Government department. In fact, upon completion of the sale, the
custody of the original title documents in the custody of the seller is also
statutorily required to be taken over by the buyer as per Section 55(3) of the
TP Act. The mandate to the buyer to carry out the due diligence qua title is
also statutorily embodied under Section 3 of the TP Act under the phrase ‘a
person is said to have notice’. This principle also finds statutory recognition
in the statutory Exception to Section 19 of the Contract Act, which provides
that a contract cannot be avoided by a party on the allegation of
misrepresentation if such a party had the means of discovering the truth
with ordinary diligence. This principle of due diligence in a contract is also
known as the doctrine of ‘Caveat Emptor’. This rule finds its basis in the
Latin maxim ‘ Caveat emptor qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum
emit ’ which means ‘let a purchaser beware: who ought not to be ignorant
that he is purchasing the rights of another’. This rule was deliberated by the
Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Aafloat Textiles India
19
Private Limited , where, at paragraph nos. 15 and 16, it was held as
under:
“15. “Caveat emptor is the ordinary rule in contract. A vendor is under no
duty to communicate the existence even of latent defects in his wares unless
by act or implication he represents such defects not to exist.” (See William
R. Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 245, Arthur L. Corbin, ed., 3d
Am. Edn. 1919.) Applying the maxim, it was held that it is the bounden
duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to
ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to
committing in any manner.
16. Caveat emptor qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit . A
maxim meaning “let a purchaser beware; who ought not to be ignorant
that he is purchasing the rights of another”. (Hob. 99; Broom; Co., Litl :
102 a : 3 Taunt. 439.) As the maxim applies, with certain specific
19
(2009) 11 SCC 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 31 of 44
restrictions, not only to the quality of, but also to the title to, land which
is sold, the purchaser is generally bound to view the land and to enquire
after and inspect the title deeds; at his peril if he does not .”
[Emphasis Supplied]
47. The aforesaid doctrine has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court
20
in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
wherein, while considering the scope of the doctrine of Caveat Emptor read
with Section 55(1)(a) of the TP Act, the Court emphasised the primary
responsibility of the buyer to ascertain the title of the seller and the defects
in the property. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: -
“16.2 As regards the rights of the appellants, independent from that of
Respondent No. 5, are concerned, we are unable to believe that the
appellants did not even verify the original allotment order before purchase
of the property to know the permissible use of the property and the factum
of existence or otherwise of any approval in respect of the commercial
building purchased by them. In this regard, the doctrine of Caveat
Emptor would require the buyer to perform all acts within his capacity
to ascertain the title of the seller and the defects in the property.
Further, Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property
Act makes it clear when the buyer with ordinary care is not able to
ascertain the material defect in the property or in the seller's title, it
becomes the duty of the seller to disclose the same though it is the
primary responsibility is on the buyer to ascertain the defects in the
property and the title …………”
[Emphasis Supplied]
48. The Plaintiff, on his own admission, is a man of means who regularly
sells and buys immovable property and is therefore well aware of the due
diligence required to be followed by a buyer in such transactions. In the
21
2018 ATS, at clause 18, it is recorded that the Plaintiff has received all the
20
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767
21
18. That the First Party has delivered all the documents pertaining to the said Shop to the Second Party,
on signing of this Agreement of Sale.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 32 of 44
documents pertaining to the suit property from Defendant No. 1. Upon
reading clause 18 of the 2018 ATS with the statutory obligation of due
diligence resting upon the buyer, it is evident to this Court that the Plaintiff
entered into the 2018 ATS with the clear knowledge that the original title
deeds of the suit property were unavailable with Defendant No. 1 and the
Plaintiff consciously elected to enter into this transaction. This lends
credence to the submissions of Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiff was aware
of the title deeds being deposited with HDFC Bank. The plea set up by the
Plaintiff in the plaint that it was defrauded by Defendant No. 1 and not
informed that the title deeds were deposited with HDFC Bank for mortgage
is not borne out from the record.
49. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands and
has sought to sustain the present proceedings on the basis of a vexatious
plaint.
50. The Plaintiff has argued that the cause for impleading the applicants,
Defendant Nos. 2 to 7, is due to the non-disclosure of the mortgage of the
suit property with HDFC Bank, which, according to the Plaintiff, constitutes
fraud. This Court has already opined that the Plaintiff, by ordinary
diligence, would have discovered that the original title documents are
unavailable with Defendant No. 1 and therefore, the Exception to Section
19 of the Contract Act is attracted to the facts of this case.
51. The Plaintiff in his rejoinder to the I.A. 1021 of 2023 has further
stated that cause of action arose against Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as they
were present during the execution of the ATS 2018 and admittedly
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have also signed the said ATS 2018 in the capacity
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 33 of 44
of witnesses, which makes them responsible and liable for Plaintiff’s mental
agony and major financial loss. There is a huge difference between
executing a particular document and being a witness to the same document.
The witnesses to a legal document only verify the authenticity or the fact
that the document was signed in their presence. They are not a party to the
contract and do not consent to its underlying obligations. Also, the Supreme
22
Court in Hemkunwar Bai v. Sumersingh & Ors has held that the
witnesses need not necessarily know what is contained in the documents.
Therefore, merely being a witness to a legal document does not make the
said Defendants liable for any loss, whatsoever, caused to the Plaintiff.
52. The amended plaint further contains, for the first time, allegations
concerning payments allegedly made in cash by Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to
Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain in connection
with the transaction under the 2018 ATS. These allegations were introduced
by way of amendment in 2025 and were not contained in the Plaintiff’s
reply to I.A. No. 11515/2022. The said allegations appear to be an
afterthought, are unsupported by any documentary evidence and, even if
assumed to be true, do not disclose any cause of action against the
Applicants/Defendants, particularly since no money was paid by the
Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 6 and 7.
53. Thus, the averments in the plaint fail to show as to how Defendant
Nos. 2 to 7 are proper and necessary parties.
III. THE PLEA OF FRAUD AGAINST DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 7 IS NOT
MADE OUT
22
2019 4 RCR (Civil) 773
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 34 of 44
23
54. The plaint makes bald allegations of fraud against Defendant Nos. 2
to 7. These pleas do not give rise to any cause of action against the said
Defendants for two reasons.
55. First , the Plaintiff has failed to show the legal obligation of
Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 to make representations as regards the status of
encumbrances on the suit property. In the absence of any legal duty of
Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 in this regard, the Plaintiff could not have relied upon
any representations made by the said Defendants as regards the title of the
suit property for making his decision. The Plaintiff has admittedly not paid
any money to the said Defendants for this transaction and therefore, has no
privity of contract with the said Defendants.
56. Second , this Court is unable to accept that the cause of action as
pleaded in the plaint discloses a case of fraud. Simply describing the acts
complained of as fraudulent cannot, by itself, constitute a plea of fraud.
Where fraud is alleged, Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC requires the necessary
particulars thereof to be specifically pleaded, including the precise acts
alleged to constitute the fraud, the manner in which it was committed, and,
where necessary, the dates and other relevant particulars. In this regard, it is
apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bishundeo
24
Narain v. Seogeni Rai wherein it was held that in cases involving
allegations of fraud, the party making such allegations must set forth full
and specific particulars thereof, and that general or vague averments are
insufficient. The Supreme Court emphasised that particulars such as the
nature of the representation, the person who made it, the person to whom it
23
At paragraph nos. 30, 31, 34, 34(f), 34(g), 34(h) and 39
24
1951 SCC 447
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 35 of 44
was made, and the time, place and circumstances in which it was made are
essential, failing which the Court would be unable to arrive at a proper
conclusion. The relevant paragraphs read as under: -
22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it
is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they
may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable
categories in law and must be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed
that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule
which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue
influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars
and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no
departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even
to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice
however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the
same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6 Rule 4, Civil
Procedure Code.
……
25. We will deal with the case of coercion first. It will be seen that the
plaintiffs' case regarding that is grounded on the single allegation that their
father was threatened with death. When all the verbiage is cleared away,
that remains as the only foundation. The rest, and in particular the facts set
out in Paras 8 to 12 about the ferocious appearance of Firangi Rai and his
allegedly high-handed and criminal activities and his character, are only
there to lend colour to the genuineness of the belief said to have been
engendered in Ghughuli Rai's mind that the threat of death administered to
him was real and imminent. But as regards the threat itself, there is not a
single particular. We do not know the nature of the threat. We do not know
the date, time and place in which it was administered. We do not know the
circumstances. We do not even know who did the threatening. Now, when a
court is asked to find that a person was threatened with death, it is necessary
to know these particulars, otherwise it is impossible to reach a proper
conclusion.
26. It was argued that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to give particulars
and if the other side is not satisfied, there are provisions in the Code which
entitle him to ask for them. That is a grave misapprehension”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 36 of 44
57. We also find it apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ranganayakamma and Another v. K.S. Prakash (Dead) by
25
LRs. in this regard. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated
that where a party seeks to avoid a transaction, settlement, decree or
contract on the ground of fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue
influence, the particulars thereof must be specifically pleaded and proved in
accordance with Order VI Rule 4 of CPC. The Court held that vague and
general allegations are insufficient unless the pleadings disclose, inter alia,
when the representations were made, who made them, the nature and
contents of such representations, and the circumstances in which the alleged
fraud or misrepresentation occurred.
58. In the facts of this case, the plaint does not set out such particulars
and rests on a general allegation of fraud. Such an allegation cannot be
treated as a substantive cause of action merely by use of the expression
fraud. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the Plaintiff’s contention that
the suit discloses a cause of action against Defendant Nos. 2 to 7, founded
on fraud.
59. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, this Court is satisfied
that the allegations of fraud are vague and unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff had
no privity of contract with Defendant Nos. 2 to 7, and the said Defendants
have no legal obligation towards the Plaintiff under the 2018 ATS relied
upon by the Plaintiff. This Court is therefore satisfied that Defendant Nos. 2
to 7 are neither necessary nor proper parties.
60. In view of the aforesaid findings, I.A. Nos. 1021/2022, 10197/2022
25
(2008) 15 SCC 673 [Paragraph Nos. 40, 41, 43 to 45]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 37 of 44
and 11515/2022 are hereby allowed. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are directed to
be deleted from the array of parties.
61. The Plaintiff is directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the
Defendant Nos. 2 to 7.
O.A. 77/2024 and I.A. 9121/2024
62. O.A. 77/2024 is a chamber appeal filed by the Plaintiff challenging
the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned Joint Registrar deleting
Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Jain, who was the erstwhile Defendant No. 9.
63. I.A. 9121/2024 has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking condonation of
delay of 44 days in filing the captioned chamber appeal.
64. In the original plaint, it is averred that Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and Mr.
Abhinandan Kumar Jain have been identically placed in the alleged role
played by them in the 2018 ATS transaction between Plaintiff and
Defendant No. 1.
65. The reasons of this Court which form the basis of allowing deletion
of Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 hereinabove, equally apply to the deletion of
Defendant No. 8.
66. For the reasons recorded in the order above, this Court finds no merit
in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. 9121/2024
stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 38 of 44
CS(OS)(COMM) 187/2022
67. The tenor of the terms and conditions of the 2018 ATS executed inter
se the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and titled as ‘Agreement of Sale’ gives
a distinct impression that the said agreement was intended to record
divestiture of all rights, title and interest of Defendant No. 1 in favour of the
Plaintiff. Illustratively, Clauses 4, 11 and 13. The Plaintiff has relied upon
letter(s) dated 01.08.2018 to allege handover of possession and direction to
the tenant to attorn to the Plaintiff. This unregistered agreement, read with
the pleading of the Plaintiff that, vide letter dated 01.08.2018, the symbolic
possession of the property was handed over to him, shows that the Plaintiff
intended this chain of documents to effect transfer of the property in its
favour as contemplated in Section 53A of the TP Act. Such an agreement is
therefore required to be registered as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration
Act, 1908, and it is required to be stamped as per Article 23A of the
Schedule-I to the Stamp Act, 1899 [‘Stamp Act’] as applicable to the Union
Territories.
68. In view of the fact that the said agreement is unstamped, the same is
liable to be impounded as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
69. The Plaintiff is directed to address submissions on this issue on the
next date of hearing.
70. Similarly, in this order, this Court has concluded that the plaint is
vexatious. This Court has opined that ex-facie the 2018 ATS and the 2019
ATS are in continuation with each other. The sale deed dated 07.01.2021
has been executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 8
through Mr. Abhishek Kedia, who is a related party vis-à-vis the Plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 39 of 44
In this regard as well, the Plaintiff shall address arguments on the next date
of hearing as to why this suit should not be dismissed. Defendant No. 1 has
already filed I.A. No. 17921/2022 seeking rejection of the plaint.
71. The Plaintiff is directed to bring on record the amended memo of
parties within two [2] weeks.
72. Accordingly, list before the Roster Bench on 20.11.2026 for
arguments on the aforesaid issues.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ hp / aa/IB
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 40 of 44
SCHEDULE- 1
Family members of the Plaintiff involved in the business
Name Relation
Mrs. Beena Agrawal
Wife of the Plaintiff; Director of M/s Flagship Store
Mr. Saksham Agrawal
Son of the Plaintiff, Proprietor of M/s Exclusive Stores. Director of
M/s Flagship Store and Exclusive Brands Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Sakshi Agrawal
Daughter of the Plaintiff
Mr. Ramavatar Agrawal
Father of the Plaintiff
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal
Brother of the Plaintiff
Mrs. Jayati Agrawal
Sister-in-law of the Plaintiff
Mr. Umesh Tekriwal
Director of Exclusive Brands Pvt. Ltd.
Mrs. Sweta Tekriwal
Wife of Mr. Umesh Tekriwal
Mr. Dilip Kumar Tibrewal Associated with the Plaintiff and works at the Plaintiff’s Tanishq
showroom at Muzaffarpur. His two sons are working at the
Plaintiff’s Tanishq Showroom at Patna.
Mr. Shashank Kejriwal
Plaintiff’s wife’s nephew
Ms. Sugandha Mantanhelia Acquaintance of Mrs. Beena Agrawal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 41 of 44
SCHEDULE- 2
Involvement of Mr. Abhishek Kedia, Director of Defendant No. 8, with the Plaintiff
and his family members [as per the written statement of Defendant No. 8 dated
07.05.2025 and Short Note of Defendant Nos. 6 and 7]
Sr. No. Company Timeline of Mr. Abhishek Kedia
1.
M/S Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd.
On 31.03.2015, Mr. Saksham Agrawal resigned from the
post of Director, and Abhishek Kedia was appointed as the
Director.
Regd. Address – New Dak
Bungalow Road (near Aparna
Appt.) Patna – 800001, Bihar.
On 31.03.2015, shares owned by Mr. Saksham Agrawal
[son of the Plaintiff] was transferred in the name of Mr.
Abhishek Kedia
On 01.04.2015, shares owned by Mrs. Beena Agrawal
Incorporation – 23.10.2013
[wife of the Plaintiff] was transferred in the name of Ms.
Sughandha Mantanhelia.
On 30.03.2019, shares of Ms. Sughandha Mantanhelia was
transferred in the name of Mr. Abhishek Kedia.
Current Shareholders :
Directors at the time of
Incorporation –
i. Mrs. Sweta Tekriwal – 14.04%
Mr. Shashank Kejriwal
ii. Mr. Abhishek Kedia – 66.40%
Mr. Saksham Agrawal
iii. Mr. Dilip Kumar Tibrewal – 19.56%
Current Directors:
Original Shareholders:
i. Mr. Abhishek Kedia
Mr. Shashank Kejriwal – 14.04%
ii. Ms. Sweta Tekriwal
Mr. Saksham Agrawal – 39.82%
Mrs. Beena Agrawal – 26.58%
Mr. Dilip Kumar Tibrewal –
19.56%
2.
M/S Niharika Retails Pvt. Ltd.
On 18.03.2020, Mr. Abhishek Kedia was appointed as an
additional Director.
Reg. Address – J-21, B.K. Dutt
Colony Jorbagh, New Delhi,
Delhi, India, 110003 .
On 20.03.2020, Mrs. Beena Agrawal resigned as a director.
[Engaged in the business of
jewellery and operates a showroom
under the Tanishq brand in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 42 of 44
Muzaffarpur, Bihar]
Current Shareholding pattern :
Incorporation: 28.12.2010
i. Mrs. Beena Agrawal – 23.82%
ii. Mr. Ramavtar Agrawal HUF – 10.46%
iii. Mr. Abhishek Kedia – 13.11% [acquired on
20.03.2020]
Current Directors:
Directors on the date of
Incorporation:
i. Mr. Abhishek Kedia
Ms. Jayati Agrawal
ii. Mrs. Jayati Agrawal
Mrs. Beena Agrawal
3.
M/S Niharika Holding Pvt. Ltd.
On 31.03.2006, the directors were the Plaintiff and Mr.
Ramavtar Agrawal.
On 11.09.2010, Mr. Ramavatar Agrawal resigned from the
post, and Ms. Sakshi Agrawal was appointed as director.
Regd. Address: Off. At New Dak
Bungalow Road, Patna - 800001
On 31.03.2015, Ms. Sakshi Agrawal resigned from the post
of director, and Mr. Saksham Agrawal was appointed as a
director in the company.
On 22.03.2021, Mr. Abhishek Kedia acquired shares of
about 2.04%.
Incorporation: 01.12.1993
Current Shareholding pattern:
i. Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal – 47.98%
ii. Mr. Saksham Agrawal – 11.43%
iii. Mr. Abhishek Kedia – 2.04%
Current Directors:
Directors at the time of
incorporation:
i. Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal
Mrs. Beena Agrawal
ii. Ms. Sakshi Agrawal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 43 of 44
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.10.2026
23:22:08
CS(COMM) 187/2022 Page 44 of 44