PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the scope and ambit of the expression other liability occurring in Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. Petitioners, directors of the company Ansal Buildwell Ltd., impleaded as accused Nos. 4 and 5 in a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act seek quashing of the complaint as also the summoning order dated 23.9.2002.

3. Facts in brief are that Ansal Buildwell Company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of construction of the buildings.

4. Respondent No.2, i.e. Ms.Usha Uppal and one Mr.Rakesh Bedi were the owners of the property bearing No.4, Hailey Road, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the said property).

5. On 10.6.1989, a MOU was entered into between the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bedi and Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as confirming party). As per the said MOU the confirming party was to construct a group housing building on the said property. In pursuance of said MOU a sum of Rs.11.5 lacs was received by the owners from the confirming party. However, the aforesaid MOU was cancelled by mutual agreement between the parties to the MOU.

6. Thereafter, on 17.1.2001, a collaboration agreement was entered into between the respondent No.2, Rakesh Bedi, the confirming party and Ansal Buildwell Co. As per the agreement, the Ansal Buildwell Co. had to construct the multi-storeyed residential building on the said property.

7. Clause V of the aforesaid agreement around which controversy in the present petition revolves stipulated that as a security for due performance of agreement, a sum of Rs.138 lacs was to be deposited by the Ansal Buildwell Co. with the respondent No.2 and other owner of the said property.

8. Clause V reads as under :- V. SECURITY DEPOSIT (a) The Builder shall deposit with the Owners a total sum of Rs.138 lakhs towards security for due compliance of the terms of this Agreement by the Builder. A sum of Rs.11.5 lakhs has already been received by the Owners from the Confirming Party, receipt whereof the Owners hereby acknowledges. The Builder shall return the said sum of Rs.11.5 lakhs on behalf of the Owners, and the balance sum of Rs.126.5 lakhs shall be paid by the Builder to the Owners in 30 equal monthly instalments as per Annexure-II hereto. (b) Payment of the said cheques on the due dates is the essence of the contract. In the event any cheque is dishonoured for any reason, the Builder shall replace the cheque with a demand draft within 7 days of the receipt of an intimation from the Owners failing which the Owners shall be entitled to take recourse to any right or remedy available to or accruing to the Owners by such dishonour. (c) The said deposit shall not carry any interest and shall be refunded by the Owners to the Builder upon the Builder delivering to the Owners the possession of their areas in the Building. (d) That upon failure of the Owners to refund the Security deposit the Builder shall have full authority and power to adjust the same by reduction of the allocation of the area of the Owners calculated on price prevalent and mutually acceptable as on the date of such default. (e) That till the refund/adjustment of the entire security deposit in the manner stated above the Builder shall have a lien over 50% out of the Owners areas in the Building and the owners shall not sell/transfer/lease or deal with the same till the deposit is refunded to the Builder or recovered by the Builder by making adjustment out of the Owners share. Delay in such refund will attract compound interest @ 18% per annum from the date the refund is due.

9. In accordance with the afore-noted clause, Ansal Buildwell Co. issued 30 cheques each in the sum of Rs.84,333/- in favour of respondent No.2. 10. Out of the said 30 cheques, 6 cheques bearing Nos.083683

Click Here to Read the rest of this document