TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Haryana. In pursuance to the said agreement the respondent/complainant gave an amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners in pursuance to the said agreement requested the respondent/complainant to release the remaining amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- in favour of the petitioners. The respondent/complainant before releasing the subsequent amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- verified the title documents, licenses, permissions, etc. with regard to the said land from the petitioner No. 2 and 3 and when the respondent/complainant came to know that the petitioners failed in their obligation to do the needful the petitioners issued three cheques of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- each in favour of the respondent/complainant and entered into a deed for cancellation of the said agreement on 07.05.2009. As per the Deed of Cancellation dated 07.05.2009 petitioners agreed to repay the sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- paid by the respondent/complainant under the said agreement dated 23.03.2007 and further agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant. Against the total settled amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- had been paid by the petitioner vide c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crores only) after adjusting the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- paid vai aforementioned pay order. Thereafter, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 requested the respondent/complainant to wait for the payment of the said two cheques amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores only) as well as the earlier cheques bearing Nos. 381878 and 381879 amounting to Rs. 1,75,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores Seventy Lakhs only). When the respondent/complainant did not get the said cheques encashed amounting to a total of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Five Lakhs only) , the respondent approached the petitioner on which the petitioners sought time till January 2014, citing that they were suffering from financial crisis and could not pay the amount. 7. Thereafter, on 17.02.2016 the petitioners again acknowledged the outstanding amounts and requested that the respondent/complainant fill in the date as 19.02.2016 on the undated cheques bearing Nos. 440712 of Rs. 25,00,000/- and 440713 of Rs. 75,00,000/- both drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, A-30-33, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi which were handed over to the respondent/complainant. On 20.02.2016 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggarwal; 162 (2009) DLT 23. 12. The instant petition is arising out of the summoning orders passed in C.C. No. 1813/16 wherein the petitioners are claiming that the impugned summoning order is bad and is nothing but abuse of process of law. 13. The proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 142 and section 142 of the NI Act are undoubtedly criminal proceeding which the respondent/complainant is initiating qua against the present petitioners for the wrongful act on the part of the petitioners. The standard of proof in the criminal proceeding is higher than that of a civil proceeding which thus gives the platform to the creditor to run criminal as well as civil proceedings parallely. This Court has already said so in the case Sanjay Aggarwal vs. G.S. Tayal & Ors.; Crl. M.C. No. 4144/2009 decided on 11.04.2012 and reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex court in the case Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Smt. Daya Sapra, (2009) 13 SCC 729. 14. The object of Chapter XVII of the NI Act is to promote the efficacy of banking operations and to ensure credibility in transacting business through cheques. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Modi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn of within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;" 17. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is reproduced as under: "Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 20. Inchoate stamped instruments.-Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in 1[India], and eith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 and 07.05.2009 executed between the parties. There is no plea on behalf of the petitioners that the said liability to repay the amount has been discharged with. MOREOVER 22. In the instant petition what is emerging is that the respondent/complainant in its complaint at para 22 has specifically alleged that the petitioners had acknowledged the outstanding payments/liability and issued the undated cheques, i.e. Cheque No. 440712 of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Cheque No. 440713 of Rs. 75,00,000/-, and had authorised the respondent/complainant to fill in the date as 19.02.2016 on the said undated cheques which is reproduced as under :- "That the Accused have neither replied to the said legal notice nor intimated any payment schedule qua same. The representatives of the Complainant had again followed up with Accused No.2 and 3 and reminded them to make the outstanding payments due to the Complainant. Thereafter, on 17.02.2016, the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 again acknowledged the outstanding amounts and requested that the Complainant fill in the date as "19.02.2016" on the undated cheques bearing number 440712 amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty ve Lacs only) and Cheque No. 440713 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eque No. 440712 of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Cheque No. 440713 of Rs. 75,00,000/-, were issued in favour of the respondent/complainant in good faith and in furtherance of their bonafide intent and always intended to repay in the said reply dated 11.04.2016. The respondent/complainant specifically alleges in the complaint that the petitioners made acknowledgement of existing liability and thereafter the respondent/complainant issued the legal notice dated 23.03.2016 and reply to the said legal notice is dated 11.04.2016 relied upon by the petitioners themselves wherein the petitioners they themselves have stated that the cheques issued were in good faith in furtherance of their bonafide intent. 26. As per the General Clauses Act good faith means an act done in furtherance of honest belief. Whereas, under Section 52 IPC good faith means whether the act so done was with due care and attention. Section 52 IPC is reproduced as under:- "52. "Good faith".-Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention." 27. The act of due care and attention is to be acted by a person who is acting in good faith and he has reason to act so....