IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Unnati Welfare Organisation - Appellant
Versus
Safety Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 39 of 2020 & I.As. 986-987 of 2020
Decided On : 26-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. debt recovery based on contract and guarantee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. enforceability of settlement agreements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. dishonour of cheques and liability. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. initiation of legal proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. claim based on dishonoured cheques. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. plaintiff's compliance with jurisdictional requirements. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. entitlement to recovery and interest. (Para 23) |
| 8. final relief and order. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--This is a Summary Suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the Plaintiff for recovery of debt and liquidated demand in money payable by the Defendants, jointly and severally, to the Plaintiff on a written contract and on a guarantee as embodied in the Deed of Personal Guarantee dated December 19, 2016 and Deed of Settlement dated March 26, 2016 executed between the parties and cheques dated December 31, 2016 issued by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff.
2. At the outset, I shall narrate a brief factual background of the case. The Plaintiff is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Defendant No. 1 is a company closely held, family-owned, managed and controlled by the Defendant No. 2 and his family. The Plaintiff, in order to provide low cost housing to its members on a no-profit no-loss basis, was in the process of purchasing land in L-Zone territory of Delhi so as to develop a group housing complex for its members under the Master Plan, Delhi 2021. The Defendant No. 1 represented to the Plaintiff that it has the expertise and experience to arrange purchase of land required by the Plaintiff. Relying upon the assurance and representation of the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 22, 2014 with the Defendant No.1 and appointed the Defendant No.1 for the purposes of acquiring land for and on behalf of the Plaintiff in villages of Pandwalan Kalan, Pandwalan Khurd, Daulatpur and Hasanpur in the territory of Delhi. The Defendant No.1 was to act as facilitator for the transactions and identify the lands and negotiate the price with the landowners. After negotiating the price with the landowners, the Defendant No.1 was to take the approval of the Plaintiff before finalising the transaction. Upon the Plaintiff approving the transaction, the Plaintiff would advance part sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 which was to be strictly utilised for making payment to the landowners as advance or part payment. The balance sale consideration was to be paid by the Plaintiff to the said landowners at the time of registration of the title. In accordance with the aforesaid arrangement, the Defendant No.1 identified and with the approval of the Plaintiff finalised sale transaction in respect of six plots of land. Details of the said six plots for which sale transactions were finalised is as under:
| SI No. | Land Owners | Village | Registration Details |
| 1 | Sanjay Kumar | Rewla Khanpur | 3807 dtd 20.03.2014 |
| 2 | Satish Kumar | Rewla Khanpur | 3809 dtd. 20.03.2014 |
| 3 | Raghuvans & Others | Rewla Khanpur | 4768 dtd. 15.04.2014 |
| 4 | Azad Singh | Pandwala Kalan | 11257 dtd. 04.09.2014 |
| 5 | Ramavtar | Pandwala Kalan | 6571 dtd. 28.05.2014 |
| 6 | Surinder Singh & Satish Kumar | Pandwala Kalan | 10143 dtd. 21.08.2014 |
3. In accordance with the arrangement, the plaintiff, in good faith advanced part of the sale consideration to the Defendant No.1 for payment to the land owners and with the instructions that the same was to be utilised to pay part sale consideration to the landowners. At the time of registration of the Sale Deed in respect of the plots of land, the Plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration to the landowners. The registration of the sale deeds was effected in the name of the Plaintiff in respect of the plots of land. At the time of registration of the sale deeds, the Defendant No.1 had issued its own cheques in the name of the landowners in respect of two pl
AI
A creditor may enforce a personal guarantee for debt repayment despite dishonoured cheques, under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The main legal point established is the liability of the Defendants under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the enforceability of the deed of personal guarantee to secure the outstanding debt....
The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the case and returned the plaint for re-filing in the appropriate venue.
The court established that a defendant must present a substantial defense to avoid summary judgment; mere assertions without evidence do not suffice.
The judgment establishes that a defendant's failure to honor a cheque, coupled with a lack of evidence to support claims of debt repayment or land procurement, results in liability under Section 138 ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be rebutted by adducing evidence which is to be appreciated on the foundation of the principles of preponderance of probability.
Suit for recovery based on promissory note is barred by limitation after three years and oral evidence alone cannot prove guarantee or payment without supporting documents.
The issuance of a cheque under a conditional agreement does not establish liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the condition is not fulfilled.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.