9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the defendant has unequivocally admitted to repay the loan amount within three year lest an action can be taken against him. The cheques also were given in advance and the defendant has also agreed to suffer proceedings if such cheques are not honoured. No linkage can be drawn between the agreement dated 15.11.2008 and with the terms of settlement stated in IA No.15482/2008 in CS (OS) No.1148/2008. As the defence raised in his application for leave to defend is contrary to what the defendant had stated in his application under Section 145(2) Negotiable Instruments Act in proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, so the defence of the defendant though appear to be illusionary but he is allowed to proceed on his depositing the principal amount of ₹ 2,25,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crore Twenty Five Lacs) with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from today. The application stands disposed of in above terms. - CS (OS) 2007/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2017 - Yogesh Khanna, J. For the Plaintiff : Mr.Ratan Kumar Singh and Mr.Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocates For the Defendant : Mr.Neeraj Kumar and Mr.Surender Sheoran, Advocates ORDER Yo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,000/-; by Mr.Sandeep Kohli was ₹ 93,32,000/-; by Ms.Poonam Virk was ₹ 8,00,000/-; and by the wife of defendant was ₹ 6,75,000/-. The plaintiff proposed the share holders to either equalize their investments for the lands held by M/s SPL or the land be sold and the proceeds be apportioned as per the ratio of their individual investments. The wife of the defendant agreed to pay further an amount of ₹ 1.56 Crore to the plaintiff to equalize her investment and hence some agreement dated 04.01.2008 was prepared and signed by all the share holders of the company in good faith. An oral understanding was allegedly effected between the plaintiff and the defendant that the wife of the defendant would retain the land of her share by paying ₹ 1.56 Crore in the company. (b) the plaintiff and defendant were to purchase the land admeasuring 7 bigha comprising in Khasra Nos.252(1-09) and 253(5-13), situated in the revenue estate of Village Satbari, Mehruali, New Delhi for a consideration of ₹ 3.00 Crore and advance of ₹ 1.38 Crore was paid. However, this deal did not materialize as the said land was acquired by the Government and even the advance mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agreement is of the year 2008, that hence the defendant prays for an unconditional leave to defend. 5. The defendant had admitted the agreement dated 25.11.2008; the five PDCs given by him to the tune of ₹ 45.00 Lac each; the dishonoure of said PDCs; but alleges that such PDCs were issued as a security and were to be encashed only if the wife of the defendant was to get her share in land of M/s SPL and as she was ousted from company no amount is payable under the agreement dated 25.11.2008 per oral understanding between the parties. 6. Further the defendant alleges that an adjustment of ₹ 69 lacs need to be given for loss suffered by both the parties in purchase of land admeasuring 7 bigha comprising in Khasra Nos.252(1-09) and 253(5-13), Village Satbari, Mehruali, New Delhi, acquired by the Government. Since an amount of ₹ 13.8 Crores paid by defendant alone so the plaintiff should contribute his share of ₹ 69.00 Lac in the said loss. 7. Before proceeding further this Court need to verify (a) if the settlement in CS (OS) 1148/2008 amongst the directors of the M/s SPL has any bearing on the agreement dated 18.11.2008 or if the agreement dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/08 of 2008 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala , House, New Delhi. However M/s SAJ Properties Private Limited will be entitled to pursue its proceedings pending before Company Law Board for transfer of its registered office from Delhi to Jaipur. xxx xxx xx) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary written elsewhere in the present application, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby agreed that the parties shall be free to acknowledge any other right(s) or liabilities between the parties, based on any transaction of any date prior to execution of the present application/agreement, only by execution of independent written agreements, which agreement has to be of the date of signing of the compromise application or any date subsequent thereto. It is further clarified that in the absence of any duly executed fresh written agreement on or after execution of the present application/agreement, no rights and liabilities of either of the parties inter se arising out of any transaction of any date prior to execution of the present application/agreement shall be enforceable by way of any civil, criminal or any other proceedings. 10. The terms a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. If the IA No. 15482/2008 in CS(OS) No.1148/2008 has taken note of other pending suit numbers, criminal complaints, property particulars, details of the cheques issued, then why these five PDCs of ₹ 45.00 lac each were not brought within the fold of such settlement. The defendant is trying to mix two disputes into one which disputes are obviously distinct. 14. By incurring loss on his own, in an independent transaction, the defendant cannot claim adjustment on the basis of an oral understanding/ agreement of an hypothetical amounts of ₹ 1,56,00,000/- payable to his wife or of ₹ 69 Lac payable by him, when his wife herself had settled her disputes in the company only for a partly sum of ₹ 6.75 Lac. It is settled law as held in catena of judgments including in Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani 2003 (6) SCC 595; Yash Chhabra vs. Maya Jain 2015 (151) DRJ 316 that oral plea to contradict written agreement is not tenable in terms of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, since all the above pleas/ allegations of the defendant have no foundation or relation with the written agreement dated 15.11.2008, same cannot be considered against the terms of the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Land measuring 7 Bigha, Comprised in Khasra no. 252 (1-09) and 253/1 (5-13) situated in Satbari. AND WHEREAS party of the first part has till now not repaid the abovesaid loan amount to the party of the second part. AND WHEREAS parties to the present agreement are recording and binding themselves with the terms of the present agreement, as mentioned herein below: NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: 1. That party of the first part hereby unequivocally records that he has taken a loan of.2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two crores twenty five lacks) from party of the second part. 2. That party of the first part is hereby acknowledging his this liability to repay the said loan of 2,25,00,000/- ( Rupees Two crores twenty five lacks) to party of the second party within 3 years (three years) from today, i.e. 15th November, 2008 from his own resources. 3. xxxx xxxx 4. That it has been categorically agreed by and between the parties to the present agreement that in the event of party of the first part not honoring the abovesaid cheques on presentation, party of the second part will be entitled to initiate appropriate legal pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
