TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsequent transaction on 3 August 2013. Evidently that transaction was after the legal notice dated 21 June 2013 and hence could not have been adverted to in the legal notice. Recourse to the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 was a clear abuse of process. The question as to whether there was a dispute as contemplated in Clause 4 of the Agreement to Sell which obviated the obligation of the purchaser to honor the cheque which was furnished in pursuance of the agreement to sell to the vendor, cannot be the subject matter of a proceeding Under Section 482 and is a matter to be determined on the basis of the evidence which may be adduced at the trial. The order passed by the High Court in the petition Under Section 482 Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usind Bank, Indore for an amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lacs only) favouring Smt. Usha. 5. Together with the agreement, the Appellants executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the Respondent. The first of the two cheques was deposited for payment. On 18 June 2013 it was returned unpaid with the remarks Insufficient funds . The second cheque dated 2 July 2013 was returned with the same remark by the banker, upon deposit. 6. After issuing legal notices dated 21 June 2013 and 13 August 2013, the Appellants instituted complaints Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 7. The Respondent filed two separate applications seeking dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... van, learned senior Counsel submits that as a matter of fact, acting on the strength of the General Power of Attorney which was issued by the Appellants in both the cases, the Respondent entered into a sale transaction in respect of the same property on 3 August 2013 for a total consideration of ₹ 3.79 crores. Hence, it has been submitted that the order passed by the High Court is manifestly misconceived. 12. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that Clause 4 of the agreement to sell postulated that there was no dispute in respect of the land which was the subject of the agreement to sell nor was there any case pending before the Court. Moreover, it was stated that if a dispute was to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
