Chandigarh court quashes Rs 28 lakh recovery decree against ‘Maa Tujhe Salaam’ producer
A Chandigarh court has provided relief to renowned film producer Mahendra Dhariwal by setting aside a decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated March 22 against him for recovery of Rs 28.53 lakh. The decree was filed by city-based financier Samdarshi Kashinath Jaiswal.
Dhariwal, who produced the 2002 film “Maa Tujhe Salaam” starring Sunny Deol, Tabu, and Arbaaz Khan, was accused of failing to repay a loan of Rs 1.10 crore taken from Jaiswal for financing several films. However, Dhariwal’s counsel, Harish Bhardwaj, denied the allegations, claiming that the agreement was forged and fabricated.
The trial court had partly allowed the suit against Dhariwal, ordering him to pay Rs 28.53 lakh with interest. However, Additional District Judge Rajnish Garg, set aside the decree, stating that Jaiswal was a money lender and did not have the necessary licence or permit to file the suit.
Jaiswal filed the suit for the recovery of Rs 3 crore through his legal heir on the basis of alleged agreements dated January 19, 2002 and May 17, 2005, and a cheque allegedly issued by Dhariwal.
Jaiswal expired during the pendency of the trial and the suit was contested through his legal heir.
Dhariwal had approached him for the production and financing of films, namely “Maa Tujhe Salaam”, “Nehle Pe Dehla” and “Jail”. He agreed to give a loan to him and financed Rs 1.10 crore for films over a period of time. But the release of the films delayed but Dhariwal assured and promised Jaiswal to pay the entire due amount before the distribution of films.
However, he failed to complete the film till 2004.
The film, “Maa Tujhe Salaam”, has already been released, however, no payment has been made. On the other hand, the counsel of Dhariwal denied the allegations. He said that the alleged agreement is a forged and fabricated document
Dhariwal’s counsel argued in the appeal that the trial court had not considered all the facts while pronouncing the judgment. He said that Jaiswal was a money lender and therefore, the suit filed by him was not maintainable as he did not have a licence or permit as required under the Act.
After hearing the arguments, Rajnish Garg said that once it has been established on record that plaintiff was a money lender from the evidence adduced by his son, the fact cannot be ignored by this court, and in the considered opinion of this court, suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as he did not have the required licence or permit to file the suit. It does not make any difference that no specific issue was framed by the trial court in this regard as the same was covered under the issue of the maintainability of the suit. The court held that the suit filed by Jaiswal was not maintainable, and the decree passed by the trial court was not sustainable in law.