GURDEEP SINGH vs RAJU SINDHI — 364/2021
Case under Recovery of Money Section 74. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 24th March 2026.
CS - CIVIL SUIT FOR DJ ADJ
CNR: DLET010055002021
Filing Number
2956/2021
Filing Date
31-08-2021
Registration No
364/2021
Registration Date
31-08-2021
Court
District and Sessions Judge, East, KKD
Judge
49-District Judge
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GURDEEP SINGH
Adv. DURGESH PAL
Respondent(s)
RAJU SINDHI
GIRISH MALHOTRA
Hearing History
Judge: 49-District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Final Arguments
Final Arguments
Final Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 23-02-2026 | Final Arguments |
| 12-01-2026 | Final Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Gurdeep Singh v. Raju Sindhi & Girish Malhotra (364/2021) The Delhi District Court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs Gurdeep Singh and Namrata Arora, ordering defendant Raju Sindhi to repay Rs. 10 lakhs with 8% annual interest from filing date. The court found that plaintiffs transferred Rs. 10 lakhs to defendant Raju Sindhi's bank account for a promised LIC investment scheme offering 20% quarterly returns, not for a gold sale as defendants claimed. The defendants' contradictory testimony—lacking documentation, failure to show gold before sale, and inconsistent accounts—was deemed unconvincing; the court applied preponderance of probabilities standard and found the plaintiffs' investment narrative more credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Gurdeep Singh v. Raju Sindhi & Girish Malhotra (364/2021) The Delhi District Court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs Gurdeep Singh and Namrata Arora, ordering defendant Raju Sindhi to repay Rs. 10 lakhs with 8% annual interest from filing date. The court found that plaintiffs transferred Rs. 10 lakhs to defendant Raju Sindhi's bank account for a promised LIC investment scheme offering 20% quarterly returns, not for a gold sale as defendants claimed. The defendants' contradictory testimony—lacking documentation, failure to show gold before sale, and inconsistent accounts—was deemed unconvincing; the court applied preponderance of probabilities standard and found the plaintiffs' investment narrative more credible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts