companies who in turn transferred the machinery to his factory premises and upon receiving these machines, the defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange the collection thereof. The defendant contends that instead of collecting the machinery, the plaintiff demanded the refund of money and since he had already purchased the machinery for the plaintiff, it was impossible for him to return the money. The defendant contended that Rs.2,00,000/- that was paid to the plaintiff was against the raw material supplied for the manufacture of tyre and not towards interest as contended by the plaintiff. The defendant contends that at the time of receiving the money, he issued the promissory notes only for security to ensure the supply of machinery and not for the payment of money. The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant has a vast experience in manufacturing of rubber products and is also having a factory for manufacturing at M.I.D.C. Amravati. After the plaintiff's had approached the defendant in 2014-15 for the purpose of setting up such a business, the defendant had accepted the proposal subject to payment of Rs,8,00,000/- as their fees for helping the plaintiff to establish such business.
