Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mr. Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
M/s Vatika Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bimla Devi - Respondent
CRM-M-29402-2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-03-2019
N.I. Act - Complaint under Section 138 - 1881 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and its interpretation in light of the facts of the case. The court emphasized the requirement of a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of the drawl of the cheque and considered the implications of the collaboration agreement and the agreement to sell in determining the existence of such liability.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging dishonor of a cheque issued as security for a land sale consideration. The trial court summoned the accused, and the revisional court dismissed the revision petition, leading to the present petition for quashing the summoning order and complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not disclose the full facts and failed to present crucial documents, leading to a lack of judicial consideration. It concluded that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of the cheque drawl, and the petitioners' defense was not disputed by the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of the cheque drawl, the complainant's disclosure of facts, and the interpretation of the collaboration agreement and agreement to sell.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's failure to disclose crucial documents and the pending civil suit indicated the absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It emphasized the requirement of full disclosure and the need for a clear dispute resolution before presenting the cheque.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the summoning order, revisional court order, and complaint were set aside and quashed.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-6), passed by the trial Court, as well as the order dated 21.08.2014 (Annexure P-7), passed by the revisional Court and the impugned complaint No. 370 dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure P-5), titled as Bimla Devi vs. Vatika Limited and others, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Bimla Devi filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) with the allegations that accused Nos. 2 and 3, on behalf of accused No. 1, entered into an agreement of collaboration on 06.08.2013 for development of land in village Garhi Harsaru, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The accused persons agreed to purchase the said land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- (Rupees three crore and fifty lakh only). Out of which, Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid, vide cheque No. 379524 dated 06.08.2013, drawn at Induslnd Bank, MG Road, Gurugram and the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crore only) was agreed to be paid after some time and then the accused had given a post dated cheque bearing No. 379529 dated 07.04.2014, amounting to Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, drawn on Induslnd Bank, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurugram to complainant/respondent and assured her that the same would be honoured on its presentation.
3. It was further stated that the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque to her bank, however, the same was returned to the complainant with endorsement "Payment stopped by Drawee", vide return memo dated 07.04.2014. Thereafter, the complainant, after serving a legal notice to the accused persons, filed the impugned complaint.
4. The trial Court, after recording the statement of the complainant, summoned the petitioners/accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, vide impugned summoning order dated 01.07.2014.
5. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a revision before the Court of Sessions and pleaded that in August, 2013, when the complainant approached petitioners, the collaboration agreement dated 06.08.2013 was executed between the complainant and petitioners and when the complainant has further shown her willingness to sell the land, another agreement to sell was executed on 07.08.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-, against which, the complainant has already received Rs. 50,00,000/- as an advance/part of sale consideration, vide cheque No. 379524 dated 06.08.2013 and balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed.
6. It is further stated in the grounds of revision before revisional Court that since there was a dispute regarding title of the said land between the complainant/respondent and Ombir etc., the petitioners were informed by the complainant that she had purchased the said land but the sale deed was not mutated in her favour in the revenue record and a civil suit titled as Simla Devi vs. Ombir etc. is pending in the Courts at Gurugram. It is further stated that the complainant had also filed a suit titled as Simla Devi vs. State of Haryana etc. in which the aforesaid Ombir etc. were also party and it was assured by the complainant that the suit will be decided and the sale deed will be executed, however, the suit is still pending and when the complainant started putting pressure on the petitioners for further payment, a posted dated cheque of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as security was given to her with the understanding that she will not present the said cheque for encashment till the decision of the above said civil suit. Thereafter, the petitioners handed over a cheque No. 379529 dated 07.04.2014 for Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the complainant as a security cheque. At the time of receiving this cheque, the complainant has executed an affidavit, duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, Gurugram on 07.08.2013, that she will execute
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
