TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il due to non-compliance of terms and conditions of MOU. The MOU did not debar the plaintiffs to avail civil remedies to recover the said amount. Settled position of law is that the criminal and civil proceedings are two different and separate independent remedies. Filing of the FIR and even of the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act did not debar the plaintiffs to avail the civil remedy to recover the outstanding amount. The defendant’s arrest pursuant to the cancellation of bail did not absolve him of the liability to pay the outstanding dues. This Court finds no sufficient ground to grant leave to defend to the defendant - application dismissed. - CS(OS) 172/2017 & IA Nos.8222/2017 [u/O 37 R-3(4) r/w Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03.02.2009 of ₹ 2.5 crores of Standard Chartered Bank was issued by the defendant to late Sh. G.L. Tandon. G.L. Tandon also wrote several letters dated 18.03.2009, 26.05.2009, 24.12.2009 and 16.04.2010 requesting the defendant to return his shares. ₹ 68,00,000/- were transferred in the name of G.L. Tandon though, the value of the shares was around ₹ 4 crores and 60 lacs. The defendant thus duped G.L. Tandon of his hard earned money. FIR 155/2012 was lodged against the defendant at the Police Station EOW for commission of offences punishable under Sections 409/420/468/471/120B IPC. 3. It is further pleaded that Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter the MOU ) dated 03.04.2013 was executed between the defendant and R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o extort money from him. 5. The application is contested by the plaintiffs. It is urged that no triable issue has been raised by the defendant to grant leave to defend to the suit. The criminal proceedings are still pending against the defendant and no final decision has yet been taken therein. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs to seek recovery of outstanding dues which were admitted in clear and unambiguous terms by the defendant. The filing of the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and under Order XXXVII CPC are two separate and different remedies. The contentions raised by the defendant in the instant applications are unmerited. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- each. Some of the cheques were encashed on presentation. However, when the other cheques were presented to the bankers for encashment, they were returned with the remarks insufficient fund . The matter was brought to the notice of the defendant and during the extended period, despite his repeated assurance/ promise, the payment was not made. The plaintiffs were constrained to file application for cancellation of bail on the strength of which conditional bail was granted to the defendant, it was cancelled. Various letters written by the defendant to the plaintiffs have been brought on record to show that the defendant had clearly and unambiguously admitted his liability to pay to the amount to the plaintiffs. The cheques in question whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t indicate if the defendant has any substantial defence to raise. Seemingly the defence raised by the defendant is frivolous and sham. It does not satisfy the court if he (the defendant) has a good defence to the claim on merits. It is an afterthought to avoid legal consequences. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no sufficient ground to grant leave to defend to the defendant. 12. The applications are dismissed. CS(OS) 172/2017 13. Since the defendant has not been permitted to defend, the plaintiffs are entitled to the judgment forthwith under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC. 14. The suit is decreed in the sum of ₹ 2,81,25,000/- with proportionate costs as per schedule. 15. The plaintiffs have claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
