9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 828 - HC - Indian LawsDemand of various electronic transfers made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants - cheque was returned with the remarks Funds Insufficient - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that - In the present appeal, on 23rd May 2016, an option was given to the Defendants to deposit the decretal amount. However, since the Defendants did not avail of the said option, this Court directed that execution petition would be proceeded with. It was recorded on 16th March, 2017 that subsequent to the settlement agreement entered into in the mediation centre, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was rejected and the Defendants were acquitted. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Suit filed under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of a sum of ?15,50,000 along with interest. 2. Allegations of suspicious transactions and breach of fiduciary duties by Defendants. 3. Dispute over a cheque issued by Defendant No. 1 for ?15,50,000. 4. Settlement agreement reached during mediation proceedings. 5. Appeal against rejection of leave to defend and subsequent settlement terms. Analysis: Issue 1: Suit under Order XXXVII of CPC The Plaintiffs, permanent residents of London, appointed Defendant No. 1 as their agent for managing their affairs in India. A Special Power of Attorney was executed, but later canceled due to suspicions of suspicious transactions. Plaintiffs claimed to have paid ?35 Lakhs to Defendants through various means, with Defendants agreeing to refund ?15,50,000 in a settlement agreement. Issue 2: Allegations of Breach of Fiduciary Duties Plaintiffs accused Defendants of not disclosing true facts about money spent, leading to confrontations. Defendants issued a cheque for ?15,50,000, but it bounced due to insufficient funds. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and a suit under Order XXXVII of CPC against Defendants. Issue 3: Dispute Over Cheque Issued by Defendant Defendants claimed the receipt dated 22nd December, 2013, was forged and sought leave to defend. However, a settlement agreement was reached during mediation proceedings at Rohini courts, where Defendants agreed to pay ?15,50,000. The trial court relied on both the receipt and settlement agreement, rejecting Defendants' leave to defend. Issue 4: Settlement Agreement During Mediation The settlement agreement dated 9th January, 2015, stated that Defendants would pay ?15,50,000 in full settlement. However, Defendants failed to make the payment by the agreed date, leading to the rejection of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and Defendants' acquittal. Issue 5: Appeal and Subsequent Settlement Terms During the appeal proceedings, Defendants were given an option to deposit the decretal amount, which they did not avail. Eventually, a settlement was reached where Defendant No. 1 agreed to pay ?20,00,000 to Plaintiffs in equal installments by January 31, 2019, as full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties. This detailed analysis covers the legal proceedings, allegations, settlement agreements, and appeal outcomes involved in the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court.
|
