Title: Chandrakant Choksi v. Manan Shah and Jankhana Shah
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1070769
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 17, 2008

REL: 10/17/2008
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
____________________
1070769
____________________
Chandrakant Choksi
v.
Manan Shah and Jankhana Shah
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court 
(CV-05-81)
STUART, Justice.
Manan Shah and Jankhana Shah sued Chandrakant Choksi in
the Jackson Circuit Court after Choksi failed to fulfill the
terms of a settlement agreement he had entered into with the
Shahs that required him to pay them $800,000.  After a trial,
1070769
2
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Shahs, awarding
them $800,000.  The trial court subsequently entered a
judgment on that verdict, adding to the amount an additional
$110,729 for prejudgment interest.  We affirm. 
I.
The defendant, Choksi, owns and leases multiple gasoline
service stations and convenience stores in north Alabama and
surrounding states.  Sometime in 2000 or 2001, a mutual friend
introduced Choksi to Manan Shah, and Choksi subsequently hired
Manan to work at a gas station and convenience store in
Madison.  In November 2003, Choksi transferred Manan to a
different gas station and convenience store in Scottsboro
(hereinafter referred to as "The Pantry").  In May 2004, Manan
entered into an agreement with Choksi pursuant to which Manan
would lease The Pantry from Choksi and operate it.  During
this same period, Manan also operated another gas station in
the same immediate area, Hi-Tech Fuel, which was not owned by
Choksi.  
On occasion, Jankhana Shah, Manan's wife, would work at
The Pantry when Manan had to leave to tend to Hi-Tech Fuel or
to take care of other business.  One day in October 2004,
1070769
3
Jankhana was working at The Pantry when Choksi stopped by to
collect the monthly lease payment.  Jankhana alleges that,
while he was in the store, Choksi grabbed, touched, and
attempted to kiss her.  Jankhana did not tell Manan about
Choksi's behavior at that time; however, after Choksi behaved
in a similar manner when he came to pick up the next month's
lease payment, Jankhana told Manan what had occurred.  
Manan thereafter purchased an audio-video recording
surveillance system and, with the help of a friend Bipin
Patel, who operated a gas station in Fort Payne and who was
also a business associate of Choksi's, installed the recording
system in the ceiling of The Pantry.  On December 26, 2004,
Choksi went to The Pantry to collect the December lease
payment.  Choksi again attempted to hug, touch, and kiss
Jankhana, at one point even trying to pull her into a closet.
Unbeknownst to him, however, the recording system captured the
entire episode on tape. 
On December 29, Manan contacted Choksi and told him he
had a videotape of Choksi harassing his wife during his visit
to The Pantry on December 26.  Manan also told Choksi that he
was terminating his lease of The Pantry and that Choksi should
1070769
At trial, Manan and Choksi each testified that the other
1
had invited Patel to the meeting.
4
come and pick up the keys.  Choksi subsequently traveled to
The Pantry, and, once he arrived, Patel, who was also there,
took him outside and showed him several still photographs that
had been extracted from the videotape.   Choksi then agreed to
1
let Manan terminate the lease but asked him to continue
operating The Pantry until Choksi could find another tenant.
Manan agreed to do so and continued operating The Pantry until
January 15, 2005.
On January 20, 2005, Manan and Choksi met at the office
of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in Huntsville to
transfer The Pantry's permit to sell alcohol from Manan to
Choksi.  After doing so, Manan and Choksi had a conversation
in Choksi's automobile during which Choksi expressed concern
about his family's reaction to the incidents with Jankhana and
offered to let Manan operate one of his gas stations and
convenience stores for five years rent free.  Their
conversation ended, however, when Manan told Choksi that he
had retained an attorney and that he was going to sue Choksi
for $1 million.  Feeling that he was being blackmailed, Choksi
1070769
The contracts that were executed were written in the
2
parties' native language of Gujarati.  The translations quoted
here were provided by the defense, but Manan agreed at trial
that the translations were correct in all material respects.
The suffixes "bhai" (men) and "ben" (women) are
3
honorifics sometimes added to names in Gujarat culture.
5
consulted an attorney the next day, who advised him to meet
with the Alabama Bureau of Investigations ("ABI").  Choksi
subsequently met with an ABI investigator, as well as with
representatives from the district attorney's offices in both
Jackson and DeKalb Counties.  Meanwhile, Choksi continued to
negotiate with Manan, using Patel as an intermediary.
Pursuant to instructions given him by the ABI, Choksi recorded
many of the telephone calls between him and Patel.
On Saturday, February 12, 2005, Choksi and Manan met at
Patel's gas station in Fort Payne to formalize an agreement
Patel had helped them reach.  That agreement was memorialized
in two separate handwritten contracts, both witnessed by
Patel.   The contract signed by Choksi reads as follows:
2
"Confession Note
"I, Chandrakant Choksi, resident of Huntsville,
Alabama, aged 40 years, with God as my witness admit
that I have insulted and hurt the self-respect of
the wife of Mananbhai Shah, Jhankhanaben,
  aged 23
[3]
years, 
and 
her 
husband 
Mananbhai 
by 
taking
inappropriate liberties with her body at their store
1070769
6
at the Shell Gas Station in Scottsboro.  They
possess video cassettes and photographs as a proof
for this crime.  As a retribution for bodily and
mental damage and insult and also to protect the
honor of my family and myself from going to police
or to court, I have agreed with my own free will and
according to Hindu religion law, to pay Mananbhai
and his wife Jhankhanaben $800,000 with the help of
my friend Bipinbhai K. Patel as an intermediary
which is agreed upon by me and Mananbhai and
Jhankhanaben.  As soon as Mananbhai and Jhankanaben
receive the compensation for this crime by May 30,
2005; they will be required to return all the
cassettes and photographs to Chandrakant Choksi.
"After this contract, neither I, nor Mananbhai
nor Jhankhanaben will have a right to file a case or
sue for money or interfere in each other's lives,
which 
is 
agreed 
upon 
by 
me, 
Mananbhai 
and
Jhankhanaben."
The contract signed by Manan provided as follows:
"Contract
"I, Manan Shah, and my wife, Jhankhana Shah,
today, with God and Bipinbhai Patel, my friend, as
witness, agree that according to the contract by
Chandrakantbhai 
Choksi, 
that 
after 
accepting
$800,000 as retribution, we or our family [has] no
right to go to court for money or to the police
station and no right to slander Chandrakantbhai
Choksi in the society or in the family.  Also, as
soon as we receive the compensation we will be
required to return all videos, CDs, photographs to
Chandrakantbhai."
After the contracts were completed, Choksi gave Manan three
postdated checks for $100,000, $50,000, and $50,000, as an
initial payment.  
1070769
7
On Monday, February 14, 2005, Choksi stopped payment on
the three checks.  He also arranged another meeting for that
date with Manan at Patel's gas station.  Choksi led ABI agents
to that meeting, and the agents subsequently questioned Manan
and Patel; however, there is no evidence in the record
indicating that the ABI took any action concerning the
dispute.  Choksi thereafter refused to pay Manan the $800,000,
and, on March 23, 2005, the Shahs sued Choksi and his
business, Hartselle Food Mart, Inc., in the Jackson Circuit
Court alleging that Choksi had breached the settlement
contract by refusing to pay them $800,000.  Choksi filed an
answer claiming, among other things, that he had signed the
settlement contract under duress after being threatened,
intimidated, and coerced.
On September 10, 2007, the Shahs' case was called for a
jury trial.  Choksi and Hartselle Food Mart moved for a
judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of the Shahs'
case and at the close of all the evidence, but both motions
were denied.  On September 13, 2007, the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the Shahs and against only Choksi for
$800,000.  The trial court entered a judgment on that verdict
1070769
8
and subsequently added an additional $110,729 to the verdict
for prejudgment interest.  The Shahs subsequently moved the
trial court to correct the judgment entered on the jury's
verdict to indicate that that judgment was against Hartselle
Food Mart also.  The trial court denied that motion.  Choksi
moved the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate its judgment
or, in the alternative, to grant him a new trial; however,
that motion was denied.  On February 13, 2008, Choksi filed
his notice of appeal with this Court.  We then remanded the
case to the trial court because of the outstanding claims
against Hartselle Food Mart.  On remand, the trial court
dismissed those claims.
II.
"In discussing the standard of review in an
appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict where
the trial court has denied a motion for a new trial,
this Court has stated:
"'"Jury verdicts are presumed correct,
and this presumption is strengthened by the
trial court's denial of a motion for a new
trial.  Therefore, a judgment based on a
jury verdict will not be reversed unless it
is 'plainly and palpably' wrong."'
"Tanksley v. Alabama Gas Corp., 568 So. 2d 731, 734
(Ala. 1990) (quoting Davis v. Ulin, 545 So. 2d 14,
15 (Ala. 1989))."
1070769
9
Petty-Fitzmaurice v. Steen, 871 So. 2d 771, 773 (Ala. 2003).
III.
Choksi raises four issues on appeal.  First, he argues
that the Shahs' claims against him are barred by statute
because they are, he claims, essentially alienation-of-
affection claims.  In Bailey v. Faulkner, 940 So. 2d 247 (Ala.
2006), this Court recognized that § 6-5-331, Ala. Code 1975,
which provides that "[t]here shall be no civil claims for
alienation of affections, criminal conversation, or seduction
of any female person of the age of 19 years or over,"
abolished any claim for damages –- no matter how those claims
are denominated –– based on allegations of interference with
the marriage relationship.  Choksi concludes that "[t]he
claims asserted by one spouse against a third party who had
become involved with the other spouse can only be classified
as alienation of affection."  (Choksi's brief, p. 25.)  
Although Bailey accurately states the law, Choksi's
argument nonetheless fails because the only "involvement"
Jankhana had with Choksi was as an unwilling victim of his
assault; no evidence was submitted indicating that she
welcomed his advances or that she consented to his touching
1070769
10
her.  This case is not about an aggrieved husband suing his
wife's paramour, see, e.g., Bailey and D.D. v. C.L.D., 600 So.
2d 219 (Ala. 1992); rather, it is about a husband and wife
suing a third party who had assaulted the wife, who had
preemptively agreed to settle to avoid legal action based on
that assault, and who then allegedly had breached the terms of
the settlement contract.  Section 6-5-331 is irrelevant to
such a case.
Choksi's 
next 
two 
arguments 
concern 
whether 
the
settlement contract is enforceable.  He first argues that the
writings signed by him and Manan do not form an enforceable
contract because, he claims, he agreed to the settlement only
after he was threatened with criminal prosecution, a civil
lawsuit, and public humiliation.  Accordingly, he argues, the
settlement was the product of blackmail or extortion.
Blackmail and extortion are prohibited by law, and, he argues,
as a matter of public policy, contracts that result from
either blackmail or extortion should not be enforced.  Choksi
cites Dickerson v. Deno, 770 So. 2d 63 (Ala. 2000), in support
of his argument, a case in which this Court held that an
alleged contract to share lottery winnings was unenforceable
1070769
We note that our decision in Dickerson was based on § 8-
4
1-150, Ala. Code 1975, which specifically provides that "[a]ll
contracts founded in whole or in part on a gambling
consideration are void."
11
because it was, at its core, based on illegal gambling.4
Choksi also  argues that the settlement contract should not be
enforced because he entered into it only after being
threatened and while he was under great duress.  See Tidwell
v. Tidwell, 505 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987)
("Alabama recognizes that upon showing of duress or undue
influence 
a 
party 
may 
be 
relieved 
of 
contractual
obligations.").
We cannot say, however, that the settlement contract
entered into by Choksi was the product of blackmail or
extortion.  The jury heard Choksi's testimony that he signed
the contract only because he felt threatened:
"Q:
Now, you eventually signed this document that
has been marked as plaintiffs' exhibit number
three, which is written in Gujarati, is that
correct?
"A:
Yes, I signed it under duress.
"Q:
Well, now, tell the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury why you signed that document.
"A:
I had that telephone conversation where he
threatened me about, 'if you don't come, I will
1070769
12
bring your partners and all of your employees
into court on my side and you will be alone in
court and I will ruin you with your family and
I will ruin your business and I will ruin you
in society and your church,' which we call
temple, 'and I will send these documents,' you
know, the pictures and the videotapes, 'and I
will send to the Gujarati Times,' which is our
Indian community newspaper, 'and I will send it
to them and I will publish that.'  And also he
told me that, 'if you don't pay me, I will do
it my way.'  And those words I recorded on tape
and that word hurt my feelings and threatened
me like I've never been threatened like that."
The jury heard this testimony, was charged by the trial court
on the elements of the affirmative defense of duress, and, as
evidenced by the verdict it returned, rejected it.  Moreover,
"'[i]t is the well-settled general rule that it is
not duress to institute or threaten to institute
civil suits, or take proceedings in court, or for
any person to declare that he intends to use the
courts wherein to insist upon what he believes to be
his legal rights.  It is never duress to do that
which a party has a legal right to do, and the fact
that a threat was made of a resort to legal
proceedings to collect a claim which was at least
valid in part constitutes neither duress nor fraud
such as will avoid liability on a compromise
agreement.'"
Neuberger v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York, 18 Ala. App.
72, 74, 89 So. 90, 92 (1921).  Considering all the evidence
adduced at trial, including the evidence indicating that
Choksi 
was 
a 
sophisticated 
and 
educated 
businessman
1070769
13
experienced in negotiating contracts, we cannot say that the
verdict returned by the jury was plainly and palpably wrong.
Choksi's final argument is that the Shahs cannot sue him
based on a breach of the settlement contract when they have
breached that settlement contract themselves.  See, e.g.,
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Gregor, 777 So. 2d 79, 82 (Ala.
2000) ("A plaintiff cannot simultaneously claim the benefits
of a contract and repudiate its burdens and conditions.").  In
his brief to this Court, Choksi states:
"The terms of the 'settlement' agreement stated
that defendant Choksi would pay money to the [Shahs]
and [the Shahs] in turn agreed that they would not
disclose defendant Choksi's actions nor disseminate
the photographs of defendant Choksi's acts to the
public. [The Shahs'] trial testimony admitted that
they repudiated the terms of this agreement with
Choksi by making public disclosures of Choksi's
attempt to have sexual relations with Mrs. Shah by
showing photographs of Choksi's actions to numerous
members of the public."
(Choksi's brief, p. 32.)
It is undisputed that Manan did discuss Choksi's alleged
assault of Jankhana and that he did share photographs of that
incident with other parties.  However, contrary to Choksi's
assertion, that behavior did not violate the terms of the
contract Manan signed.  That contract provided only that
1070769
Choksi has not argued to this Court that the term
5
"slander," as it is used in the contract executed by Manan,
means anything other than its ordinary legal definition as
explained here, that is, it requires the communication of a
false and defamatory statement.
14
"after accepting $800,000 as retribution, we or our family
[has] no right to go to court for money or to the police
station and no right to slander Chandrakantbhai Choksi in the
society or in the family."  Ignoring the fact that the Shahs
never actually received $800,000, there is no evidence
indicating that the Shahs in fact slandered Choksi.  Manan may
have showed the videotape and photographs extracted from the
videotape to others; however, Choksi agreed at trial that
"what is on the videotape is what occurred."  Slander is a
form of defamation and "[t]ruth is an absolute defense to a
defamation claim."  S.B. v. Saint James School, 959 So. 2d 72,
100 (Ala. 2006) (citing Foley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins.
Co., 491 So. 2d 934 (Ala. 1986)).   There is no evidence
5
indicating that the Shahs themselves breached the settlement
contract.
IV.
The Shahs sued Choksi alleging breach of contract, and,
after a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
1070769
15
the Shahs for $800,000.  A judgment was subsequently entered
on that verdict, and Choksi has failed to establish that that
judgment was plainly and palpably wrong.  Accordingly, that
judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.