TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruments Act was filed pertaining to dishonouring of the two cheques i.e. cheque no. 504080 dated 30.09.2010 of ₹ 4,35,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) and second cheque no. 504081 dated 30.09.2010 of ₹ 97,69,266/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Six Only), which were dishonoured vide dishonor memo dated 15.10.2010 in respect of cheque no. 504080 and dishonor memo dated 16.10.2010 in respect to cheque no. 504081 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent issued two legal demand notices dated 26.10.2010 in respect of the two dishonoured cheques which was duly served upon the petitioners. The complainant/respondent at the same time also filed a Civil Suit (OS) No. 47 of 2011 for the recovery of ₹ 5,75,17,240/- before this Court and the same was decreed in favour of the present respondent on 19th March, 2013. The said decree was for a sum of ₹ 5,75,17,240/- with pendente lite interest @ 9% p.a. and future interest @ 15% p.a. Since the judgment and decree in the Civil Suit (OS) No. 47 of 2011 has attained finality between the same parties with respect to the same tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he month of January, 2010 Mr. Janak Goyal/petitioner no.2 requested the complainant/respondent for a loan of ₹ 4,35,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) for a period from 20.01.2010 to 31.05.2010 which was extendable upto 30.09.2010 with interest thereon for the said period, being the last date to re-pay the loan along with interest. Thereupon, the Company/petitioner no.1 i.e. Omway Build estate Private Limited and the complainant/respondent entered into a Loan Agreement dated 20.01.2010. As per the Loan Agreement, the complainant gave ₹ 4,35,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) to the accused/petitioners No.1 3, by way of three cheques bearing no.s 508629 dated 19.01.2010, 5555761 dated 20.01.2010 and 5555763 dated 20.01.2010, for a period from 20.01.2010 to 31.05.2010 which was extendable upto 30.09.2010, along with interest thereon. The said cheques were duly encashed by the Company. 3. It is further alleged in the complaint that under the loan agreement the Company agreed that the Company would issue post dated cheques as security for re-payment of the loan amount along with interest thereon, which would be presented for paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered into a loan agreement with the respondent on 20.01.2010. 9. He has further submitted that the loan was given by the petitioners through three cheques i.e. Cheque no. 508629 dated 19.01.2010, cheque no. 5555761 dated 20.01.2010. cheque no. 5555763 dated 20.01.2010. The said cheques were encashed by the petitioners. It was agreed that the petitioners will give post dated cheques along with interest. The petitioners issued two cheques in favour of the complainant/respondent. First cheque i.e. cheque no. 504080 dated 30.09.2010 of Rs. ₹ 4,35,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) towards payment of principal amount and second cheque, i.e. cheque no. 504081 dated 30.09.2010 of ₹ 97,69,266/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Six Only) towards payment of interest on the principal amount. However, the petitioners defaulted in paying the total amount i.e. total amount with interest and cheques were dishonoured with remarks funds insufficient‟ by Bank of Baroda, Lajpat Nagar branch. 10. The respondent sent legal notice dated 26.10.2010 in pursuance of that the respondent filed the present case in year 2010. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and its day to day business. The respondent invoked the provisions of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The relevant paragraphs of the complaint are reproduced hereunder:- 2. The Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Accused No. 1 Company (the Company ), which has its registered office at 3 LSC, Shahdara Chamber, K Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 and are the persons in charge and responsible for the Company s business and its day to day affairs. The Company is in the business of construction and building development 15. The petitioners entered into a loan agreement dated 20th January, 2010 with the complainant/respondent and took the amount of ₹ 4,35,000,00/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) from the complainant/respondent. Against the said loan, the petitioners mortgaged their certain properties situated in the District Alwar, Rajasthan. In clause 6.1 of the Loan Agreement, the petitioners had undertaken that there is no suit pending in any Court of law in respect of the property to be mortgaged nor the borrowers i.e. the petitioners have been served with any notice for infringing the provisions of Municipal Act or any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to dishonouring of the two cheques i.e. cheque no. 504080 dated 30.09.2010 of ₹ 4,35,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Five Lakhs Only) and second cheque no. 504081 dated 30.09.2010 of ₹ 97,69,266/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Six Only), which were dishonoured vide dishonor memo dated 15.10.2010 in respect of cheque no. 504080 and dishonor memo dated 16.10.2010 in respect to cheque no. 504081 with the remarks Funds Insufficient . Thereafter, the complainant/respondent issued two legal demand notices dated 26.10.2010 in respect of the two dishonoured cheques which was duly served upon the petitioners. 23. The complainant/respondent at the same time also filed a Civil Suit (OS) No. 47 of 2011 for the recovery of ₹ 5,75,17,240/- before this Court and the same was decreed in favour of the present respondent on 19th March, 2013. The said decree was for a sum of ₹ 5,75,17,240/- with pendente lite interest @ 9% p.a. and future interest @ 15% p.a. 24. The petitioners preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 9695 of 2015 against the judgment and decree passed in the Civil Suit (OS) No. 47 of 2011 in the Hon ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
