MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) This is a claim for money paid by the plaintiff / petitioner to the defendant no.3 at the instance of the defendant nos.1 and 2 for purchase of a sawmill located in Arunachal Pradesh of which the defendant no.4 is a substantial share-holder. The claim of the plaintiff/petitioner proceeds on the basis of an amount of Rs.14.14 crores being given for the sawmill in 2019 after which the plaintiff/petitioner would be in possession of the said mill. The document which forms a basis of the claim is a reply given by the defendant no. 4 which is a Consortium and also speaks for defendant nos.7 and 8. The document is a reply to a letter of demand issued by the plaintiff to the defendant no.4 on 7th January 2021 for the sum of money paid to the defendant no.3 for handing over the property to the plaintiff. The letter of demand mentions that the defendant no.4 is the majority partner of the defendant no.3. The reply to this letter which is contained in an e-mail of 1st February, 2021, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contains a clear admission of the money being received by the defendant nos.1 and 2 from the petitioner. The letter also states that the money received has been rotated through the defendant no.3, which is an NBFC controlled by the defendant nos.1 and 2. The partnership pattern of the defendant no.4, as tabulated in the letter, indicates that the defendant nos.7 and 8 hold substantial shares in the defendant no.4.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the concerned transaction for purchase of the project failed, the petitioner is no longer interested in purchasing the saw-mill and the only relief sought at this stage is refund of the money given to the defendant no.3 for purchase of the saw-mill.
(3.) The defendants speak in different voices in their defence to the claim. The case of the defendant nos.4,7 and 8 is that the defendant nos.1 and 2 control defendant nos.5 and 6 and that the agreement which forms the basis of the claim was between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 and 2. It is submitted that there is admittedly no agreement for the transaction in question between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.;