CRL.RP/467/2026 of CHISEL FITNESS LLP Vs M/S INTEGRITY SPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LTD on 17 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 06.01.2024 passed in C.C.No.3711/2019 by the Trial Court and also against the judgment dated 12.11.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.1577/2024 by the Appellate Court.

HC-KAR

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of case of complainant is that accused No.1 is a partnership firm and accused No.2 is the partner of accused No.1 and its authorised signatory looking after its day to day business. The complainant has started a fitness center as Game Ready. Accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 firm approached the complainant stating that she has experience in running fitness club and offered to provide the necessary assistance. After discussion, the memorandum of understanding dated 19.08.2015 was executed between the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2. They also agreed that they shall run a gymnasium in accused firm under the brand name of CHISAL. The said gymnasium shall carry the business of running the gymnasium, health club, diet counseling, fitness assistance and other related activities. In that regard the complainant paid one time non-refundable franchisee fee of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused No.1. Accused No.2 agreed to share 50% of the monthly profits with complainant and accused had further agreed to pay monthly minimum guarantee amount of

HC-KAR

Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for the first 3 months and a monthly minimum guarantee of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant for the rest of the period or whichever is higher. The complainant further submits that in the month of April 2018, accused have failed to pay the monthly minimum, guarantee amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as agreed along with the applicable taxes. The total amount due by the accused was Rs.4,37,980/- against which the complainant raised invoices and the accused agreed to pay the said amount.

4. The complainant further submitted that MOU dated 19.08.2022 has expired in the month of September 2018. They both agreed that the same MOU will continue to be binding on the accused and the complainant. But the accused with mala fide intention of cheating, avoided to make the payment of the due amount. After lot of discussions, the complainant convinced the accused to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.04.2018 after lot of mutual discussion. In the said Memorandum of Agreement, accused agreed to pay the monthly minimum guarantee of Rs.43,67,980/- in two

HC-KAR

installments and agreed to pay the 50% of the due amount on or before 25.04.2019 and second installment on or before 10.05.2019. Accused No.2 also agreed to pay the penalty of 20% per annum if she fails or neglects to pay the due amount as agreed by her.

5. It is further submitted that towards discharge of legally recoverable debt of two installments as agreed by accused No.2, issued two post-dated cheques dated 25.04.2019 for an amount of Rs.21,83,990/- and another cheque dated 10.05.2019 for an amount of Rs.21,83,990/-. When the cheques were presented, both were dishonored with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ and ‘payment stopped by drawer’. When the same was brought to the knowledge of complainant, complainant issued the legal notice but accused neither replied nor complied the notice. Hence, the complaint was filed, cognizance was taken and accused was secured and he was released on bail and thereafter he did not plead guilty and claims the trial.

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at

HC-KAR

Ex.P1 to P15. On the other hand, accused also examined as DW1 but no documents are produced before the trial Court. The trial Court having considered the material on record, in paragraph 34 extracted the evidence of DW1 wherein she categorically admitted the case of complainant and issuance of the cheque and also the agreement between the parties and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and considered the admission of DW1 in paragraph 35 and comes to the conclusion that cheques are issued towards the liability. The court also take note that the transaction is of the year 2018 and having taken note of the same comes to the conclusion that double the amount of Cheque will meet the ends of justice and convicted and sentenced accused No.2 directing to pay an amount of Rs.90,89,960/-.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal was filed before the appellate court. The appellate court also having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the very admission on the part of DW1 takes away the case of the appellant and documents clearly

HC-KAR

establishes with regard to the transaction between the complainant and accused and also entering into an agreement between the parties. With regard to the sentence is concerned, the appellate Court separately considered the same considering Point No.4 and modified the same to six months instead of one year and compensation amount is not modified.

8. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that both the courts have committed an error particularly with regard to the sentenced part is concerned and counsel would vehemently contend that MOU at Exhibit P1 was expired on 19.08.2018 and the respondent failed to pay the renewal franchisee fee of Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no contractual relationship existed thereafter. When there is no contractual relationship between the parties, the learned Magistrate could not held that there is a legally enforceable debt between the parties and imposing of double the amount of Cheque is also not commensurate with the same. Hence, this Court has to interfere with findings of trial Court. the appellate court also

HC-KAR

with regard to double the amount imposed by trial Court was confirmed and the same is erroneous.

9. Per contra, the counsel appearing to the respondent would submit that the accused has not denied the transaction between the complainant and accused and the said transaction is also for the commercial purpose that too for running a gymnasium and even assured to pay the amount of profit and the same was not paid. When such being the case, the trial Court taken note that the amount was paid in 2018 and hence, double the amount was fixed and appellate court also taken note of the same and confirmed the same and sentence is only modified. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent, it discloses that there is no dispute with regard to the transaction between the complainant and accused and the same is also for the running of gymnasium and Ex.P1 and P2 are the two memorandum of understanding taken place between the complainant and accused and subject matter of Cheques at

HC-KAR

Ex.P3 to P5 also issued by the accused and the same are not disputed and bank endorsements are also marked as Ex.P6 to P8 and legal notice was issued and same was served on the accused but no reply was given. When there is an admitted evidence with regard to the transaction between the parties particularly Ex.P1 and P2 is with regard to the commercial transaction of running of gymnasium, the contention of the counsel that both the courts committed an error in imposing double the amount and confirming the same cannot be accepted since the court has taken note of nature of transaction between both the complainant and accused. The Trial Court also taken note of clear admission on the part of DW1 and 2 with regard to the execution of Ex.P1 and P2 so also issuance of Ex.P3 to P5 and even specific admission was given that DW1 had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- if the said gymnasium business is under the loss or under the profit. When this admission was given, I do not find any ground to interfere with finding of the Trial Court. The transaction between the complainant and accused is a commercial transaction that to running a gymnasium and the same is for

HC-KAR

the getting the income. Hence, no grounds are made out to entertain the revision petition and scope of revision is very limited. Only if the order suffers from its legality and correctness and it leads to miscarriage of justice, then only this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN