Delhi High Court
M/S Jindal Promoters (P) Ltd vs M/S Jaipuria Buildtech (P) Ltd on 20 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3085/2015 & I.A.Nos.9908/2016, 13735/2016
M/S JINDAL PROMOTERS (P) LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
M/S JAIPURIA BUILDTECH (P) LTD ..... Defendant
Through None
% Date of Decision: 20th December, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.5,00,00,000/-
along with interest @ 24% per annum.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff-company is a
builder company and is engaged in the business of building residential
flats in Noida-U.P. and Delhi. It is further stated that the defendant is
engaged in the sale/purchase of property/plots and deals in real estate.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant had
approached the plaintiff for the sale of land comprising half portion of
Khasra no. 947 area measuring 2660 Sq.Mtrs. (3180 Sq. Yds.), Khasra
no. 948 area measuring 3670 Sq. Mtrs. (4389 Sq. Yds.), half portion of
Khasra no. 951-52 area measuring 800 Sq. Mtrs. (3200 Sq. Yds.),
Khasra no. 953 area measuring 3160 Sq. Mtrs. (3779 Sq. Yds.) and
Khasra no. 957 area measuring 3410 Sq. Mtrs. (4076 Sq. Yds.)
comprising total land of 13,700 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Saddiq Nagar,
Ghaziabad - Uttar Pradesh.
4. It is stated in the plaint that the initial payment of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- was made by the plaintiff company to the defendant
before inspection of the land and settlement of prices, since payment
of the amount was a condition precedent for inspecting the land.
5. It is stated that the defendant after receiving the amounts gave a
rough receipt of part of the money to the plaintiff. It is further stated
that the rough receipt was a hand written note of the director of the
defendant- company i.e. Mr. Ashok Goyal.
6. It is averred in the plaint that, subsequent to the payment of the
initial amount, the plaintiff conducted an enquiry with respect to the
title of the suit property and the said enquiry revealed that the title
papers were not under the name of the defendant. It is stated that the
defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale
of the suit property with the sole intent to defraud and cheat the
plaintiff.
7. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff confronted the
defendant company directors and asked them to return the payment of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- made by the plaintiff. The directors of the defendant-
company admitted their liability and offered to refund/return the
money of the plaintiff and issued three cheques bearing Cheque No.
000134 dated 20th August, 2013 for Rs.1,50,00,000/-, Cheque No.
000136 dated 15th September 2013 for Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Cheque
No.000137 dated 30th September, 2013 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-, all
cheques drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. with the assurance that
the same would be encashed on presentation.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that when the plaintiff
presented the cheques for encashment, the same were returned by the
bank, vide Cheque Returning Memos dated 20 th August, 2013, 17th
September, 2013 and 1st October, 2013, as „unpaid and dishonoured‟
with the remark "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT".
9. He states that the plaintiff-company had informed the defendant
that the cheques issued by them were dishonored and returned by the
bank and requested the defendant to pay the amount through demand
draft, but the defendant declined to make any payments to the
plaintiff.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that since the defendant
did not make the respective payment, the plaintiff issued three legal
notices to the defendant dated 10th September, 2013, 25th September
and 08th October, 2013 requesting them to make the relevant
payments. He states that despite making several requests, the
defendant has failed to pay the outstanding amount of
Rs.5,00,00,000/- till date. Learned counsel of the plaintiff states that
the plaintiff has also initiated multiple proceedings under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the defendant in respect of
the aforesaid cheques and the same are pending before the
Karkardooma District Court, Delhi.
11. Since the defendant did not enter appearance, it was proceeded
ex-parte vide order dated 26th September, 2017.
12. The plaintiff has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Jai
Pal Singh Chauhan in support of the averments made in the suit and
inter alia relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 are the copies of the hand
written receipt given by the director of the defendant-
company to the plaintiff.
(ii) Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 are the certified
copies of the cheques given by the defendant-
company directors to the plaintiff.
(iii) Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 are the certified
copies of the cheque returning memos sent by the
bank to the plaintiff.
(iv) Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12 and Ex.PW1/13 are the
copies of the legal notices sent by the plaintiff to the
defendant.
13. Having perused the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that
the defendant had taken Rs.5,00,00,000/- from the plaintiff for sale of
the suit property. However, the defendant has till date neither executed
the sale of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff nor has the
defendant returned the said amount to the plaintiff.
14. Further, the act of the defendant in issuing three cheques dated
20th August, 2013 for Rs.1,50,00,000/-, dated 15th September 2013 for
Rs.1,50,00,000/- and dated 30th September, 2013 for Rs.2,00,00,000/-
for payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount and the same being
dishonoured vide return memos dated 20th August, 2013, 17th
September, 2013 and 1st October, 2013 with remarks "Funds
Insufficient" are clearly indicative of the defendant‟s intent of evading
the payments payable to the plaintiff-company.
15. Also, despite issuance of legal notices dated 10th September,
2013, 25th September and 08th October, 2013, by the plaintiff, calling
upon the defendant to make the outstanding payment, the defendant
has neither replied to the same nor made any payment till date.
16. As the averments in the plaint have not been rebutted by the
defendant in spite of ample opportunities given by this Court, they are
deemed to have been admitted.
17. Consequently, the present suit is decreed for Rs.5,00,00,000/- in
favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant along with
pendent lite and future interest @ 8% per annum on the outstanding
amount along with costs incurred by the plaintiff. The cost shall
amongst others include the lawyers‟ fees as well as the amounts spent
on purchasing the court fees. Registry is directed to prepare a decree
sheet accordingly.
MANMOHAN, J
DECEMBER 20, 2017
rn
