Mumbai News: Court Convicts Tridhaatu Partners For Cheque Bouncing Case

The metropolitan magistrate's court in  Mazgaon has convicted Tridhaatu Asset Holdings LLP and its partners Dhananjay Sandu, Govind Muthukumar, Pritam Chivukula in a cheque bouncing case. They have been asked to pay the cheque amount of Rs 7.73 crores with nine percent interest and also undergo imprisonment for one year.

The metropolitan magistrate, Avinash A. Walujkar, while convicting the firm and its partners has observed that, "The tendency of issuing a cheque without there being balance in the account is increasing in society which is harmful to the commercial world."

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 (MoUs) were signed dated August 31, 2016, January 18, 2017 and October 12, 2017.

On the expiry of the term of the MoUs, the partners asked for an extension of three more years. The complainant agreed for extension of investment loan on the condition of the partners providing additional security with first charge of the flat. Thus, the  old MoU 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 MoUs, the tenure of repayment of  the 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 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. 

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 the  complainant in their redevelopment project, however, it was noticed by the complainant that those flats  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 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.

The partners on the other hand in their defence stated that Tridhaatu Asset Holding LLP was not the part of any of the MOU. They claimed that Tridhaatu Bharadwaj Developers LLP, Tridhaatu Maruti Developers LLP, Tridhaatu Aranya Developers LLP, Tridhaatu Asset Holding LLP are all different legal entities having separate and independent existence. 

The defence argued that the complainant had failed to establish that he advanced loan of about Rs.4 crores to Tridhaatu Asset Holding LLP. He also argued that the complainant has failed to establish that the cheque was issued by Tridhaatu Asset Holding LLP in discharge of  the liability of Tridhaatu Bharadwaj Developers LLP, Tridhaatu Maruti Developers LLP, Tridhaatu Aranya Developers LLP. The firm had also denied the liability to pay the loan.

The court discarded the defence observing all these firms are run by the common partners and in several communications Tridhaatu Asset Holding LLP had agreed to pay the loan with post- dated cheques. 

The court hence while convicting them for cheque bouncing observed that, "The complainant on basis of MOU and letters has established the fact that he advanced loan to the partners of the firms for their business purpose. The complainant was allotted flats as security and the disputed post- dated cheque included the loan amount and the interest. The accused failed to establish that they have allotted any of the flat given as security to the complainant."

"If the accused had given immovable property as against the outstanding loan amount the complainant would not have approached the court by depositing the post dated- cheque," the court added.