Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:--

1. It is the case of the two plaintiffs:-

(i) that the defendant No. 1 Company of which the defendant No. 2 Shri Anil Kumar Jain is the Director/Chairman, is the owner of land ad measuring 6700 sq. yds. together with building, plant and machinery comprised in Khewat No. 60/41 min Khata No. 89 Rect. & Kill No. 21 & 42/2 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Liwaspur, Distt. Sonepat; Haryana;

(ii) that the defendant No. 1 Company had, by mortgaging the said property, availed loan facilities from the defendants No. 3 Bank of India, Sonepat Branch and Senior Manager of which and Zonal Manager of Chandigarh Branch of which Bank have been impleaded as defendants No. 5&4 respectively (only by position and without giving any name);

(iii) that the defendant No. 1 Company was unable to repay the loan and loan account of the defendant No. 1 Company with the defendant No. 3 Bank became a ‘Non-Performing Asset’;

(iv) that in June, 2005 the defendants No. 4&5 together with the defendant No. 8 Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Sr. Manager of Bank of India, Sonepat approached the plaintiffs and their associate Mr. M.L. Goel impleaded as defendant No. 7, offering the aforesaid mortgaged property for a total consideration of Rs. 65 lacs;

(v) after negotiations, the plaintiffs along with the defendant No. 7, vide their letter dated 26th July, 2005 addressed to the defendant No. 4 made a settlement offer for settlement of the aforesaid loan account of the defendant No. 1 Company for a total sum of Rs. 65 lacs and the two plaintiffs and defendant No. 7 also opened their accounts with the defendant No. 3 Bank to facilitate speedy transfer of the said amount from their account to the loan account of the defendant No. 1 Company;

(vi) that the defendant No. 1 Company acting through the defendant No. 2 entered into an Agreement to Sell the aforesaid property to the two plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 and whereunder the defendant No. 1 Company agreed to complete the sale in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 after obtaining sale permission, No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the HUDA or any other specified authority;

(vii) that the defendants No. 4&5 vide their letter dated 10th November, 2005 accepted the offer of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 contained in the letter dated 26th July, 2005 supra;

(viii) that the defendants No. 1&2 however did not execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 on account of the sale permission and NOC from the appropriate authorities having not been received;

(ix) that the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 also handed over to the defendants No. 1&2 cheque for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards expenses to be incurred in obtaining the permissions, though the same were to be obtained by the defendants No. 1&2 at their own costs;

(x) that the defendant No. 2 vide his letter dated 6th December, 2005 to the defendant No. 4 also sought extension of time up to 31st December, 2005 for completion of the compromise settlement;

(xi) that the defendant No. 2 however got served a legal notice dated 19th January, 2006 on the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 alleging that the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 7 had failed to deposit the entire amount with the Bank on or before 10th December, 2005 and cancelling the Agreement to Sell dated 20th August, 2005;

(xii) that the plaintiffs vide reply dated 30th January, 2007 to the legal notice supra contended that they had already deposited Rs. 65 lacs in their accounts aforesaid opened with the defendant No. 3 Bank and also handed over Rs. 60,000/- to the defendants No. 1&2 for getting the sale permission and were not in default of their obligations under the Agreement to Sell;

(xiii) that the defendant No. 7 filed CS(OS) No. 598/2006 in this Court against the defendants No. 2,4&5 for injunction, without impleading the plaintiffs as parties thereto; and,

(xiv) that the defendant No. 2 in the said suit disclosed execution of Agreement to Sel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document