$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 372/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 31st January, 2012
FARWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.H.K. Chaturvedi, Ms. Anjali
Chaturvedi and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Advs.
Versus
ESSON FURNISHING PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Pratap Sahani, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 1287/2012 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. 372/2012
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash the NBW Order dated 23.01.2012 in CC No. 2491, 4485, 4483, 4484 /1 of 2010 passed by ld. MM (01) South NIA, New Delhi against the petitioners.
2. Earlier, vide settlement dated 15.09.2011, the matter had already Crl.M.C.372/2012 Page 1 of 4 been amicably settled between the parties and the petitioners agreed to pay the settlement amount in the following manner:-
"C) That both the parties after deliberations have agreed for a sum of Rs.16,00,000 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) as full and final settlement subject to payment of the said sum by way of the following installments:- i.) Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 15.09.2011 by way of Bankers cheque / Demand Draft no. 449872 dated 12.09.2011.
ii.) Rs.4,50,000/- by way of Demand Draft to be paid on or before 30.09.2011.
iii.) Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.10.2011.
iv.) Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.11.2011.
v.) Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.12.2011.
vi.) Rs.10,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.01.2012.
vii.) Rs.10,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.02.2012.
viii.) Rs.10,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.03.2012.
ix.) Rs.10,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.04.2012.
x.) Rs.10,000/- to be paid by way of Demand Draft on or before 30.05.2012.
f) Whereas the first party has assured the second party that they will not make any default in payment of the said installments and in case of any default by the first party, the second party is free to proceed further in the pending cases under the N.I. Act or any other proceedings deemed fit and is at liberty to press for full payment of Rs.17,34,000 with interest thereon.
3. However, the petitioners could not pay the agreed amount due to some financial crisis. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as Crl.M.C.372/2012 Page 2 of 4 per the settlement, the petitioners had to pay Rs.16,00,000/- by way of demand draft in instalments up to 30.05.2012. However, the petitioners now has arranged the entire above mentioned balance amount of Rs.8,50,000/- and two Demand Draft bearing no. 272616 and 272624 both dated 20.01.2012 amounting Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/- respectively issued by State Bank of India have been handed over to the ld. Counsel for Respondent, who has accepted the same without any protest.
4. Since the petitioners have not complied with the settlement agreement dated 15.09.2011, as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein, in this process petitioners have wasted the precious time of the court.
5. Therefore, I impose cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioners. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the respondent and balance amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited in favour of Middle School for Deaf, Sector-4, Rohini, Delhi.
6. The Principal / Head Master of the aforesaid School is further directed to keep this amount in FDR initially for a period of 2 years, to be renewed periodically and interest accrued thereon, shall be utilized for the welfare of the needy children of the School.
7. Respondent is agreed to withdraw all the complaint cases under Section 138 NI Act, pending before the trial court.
8. Accordingly, petitioners are further directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 4 weeks from today and proof of the same shall be placed on record.
9. Crl. M.C. 372/2012 is allowed on the above terms subject to Crl.M.C.372/2012 Page 3 of 4 withdrawal of complaint cases by respondent.
10. Consequently, the complaint cases mentioned above u/s 138 of NI Act stand compounded.
11. Since the main petition is allowed, Crl.M.A. 1286/2012 (Stay) become infructuous and disposed of as such.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 31, 2012 Jg/RS Crl.M.C.372/2012 Page 4 of 4