Mumbai: Tridhaatu Asset Holdings LLP and its partners Dhananjay Sandu, Govind Muthukumar, Pritam Chivukula have approached the sessions court against the order of the conviction by Metropolitan Magistrate court in a cheque bouncing case. The court has now asked complainant to respond to the appeal.
The four were held guilty by the Metropolitan Magistrate court in a cheque bouncing case in June asked to pay the cheque amount of Rs 7.73 crores with 9 % interest and also undergo imprisonment of one year. The court had however stayed the sentence giving them period to challenge the order.
A month later they filed an appeal in July through their lawyer Suraj Iyer primarily on the ground that the Magistrate court had failed to consider several facts on record. Besides it was also contended that the four had no liability towards the complainant but the transactions were with the firms namely Tridhaatu Bharadwaj Developers LLP and Tridhaatu Aranya Developers LLP.
The sessions court on receipt of the appeal stayed the order and also granted bail to the three partners. Besides, the case was also referred to Lok Adalat for out of court settlement. However, as the talks failed, the court would now proceed to hear the appeal.
The case against the firm was filed by Ramakrishnan Subramanian, who was CEO of Shriram Capital Ltd. and a board member of Shriram group companies around June 2016. However, he later on shifted to Singapore and moved the complaint through his power of attorney holder.
In his complaint Subramanian alleged that he and his wife were offered to invest in Tridhaatu Group real estate development company. He agreed to invest Rs 2.75 crores against which he was allotted flats in the project of Tridhaatu Bharadwaj Developers LLP and Tridhaatu Maruti Developers LLP. Accordingly three Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) were signed dated August 31, 2016 ; January 18, 2017 and October 12, 2017.
On the expiry of the term of MoU, the partners asked for extension of three more years. The complainant agreed for extension of the investment loan on condition of the partners providing additional security with first charge of the flat. Thus old MoUs were terminated and two new MoUs were signed between Tridhaatu Bharadwaj Developers LLP and the complainant and Tridhaatu Aranya Developers LLP and the complainant. With this the total investment came up to Rs 4.70 crores which included the principal amount of Rs 2.75 crores and interest of Rs 1.25 crores.
As per the new MoU, the tenure of repayment of invested loan amount along with interest was fixed for a period of three years from April 24, 2018. The initial period of 18 months was lock-in period with final repayment due date as on April 23, 2021 for the total repayment amount of Rs. 7.73 crores which included the interest payable on the invested loan amount till April 23, 2021. The partners also gave post dated cheques worth Rs 7.73 crores with a letter.
However, after the lock in period of 18 months, the complainant did not want to continue with the investment. Hence he asked the partners through a letter dated September 30, 2019 to return the money with the interest accordingly.
The complainant alleged that the accused promised to repay the loan amount but did not make the payment. They proposed to sell the flats in favour of complainant in their redevelopment project. However, it was noticed by the complainant that those flats and on going projects were already mortgaged by them with HDFC Ltd. The other securities offered by the accused were also mortgaged with some other lenders. Hence, the complainant also filed a criminal case against the firm and the partners.
However, even after several communications the partners failed to return the money. Hence on April 23, 2021, the complainant deposited the post dated cheques and they bounced with the remark of ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter he also issued a demand notice which also the partners did not respond and hence a case for cheque bouncing was filed.
