2019 (3) TMI 1895

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he complaints instituted by the Appellants Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The Appellants are spouses. Claiming to be owners of certain agricultural land they entered into an agreement to sell dated 28 May 2013 with the Respondent. The sale consideration was Rs. 1.75 crores. The agreement records that an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores was paid in cash and as for the balance, two post dated cheques were issued, each in the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs. 4. The cheques were issued by the Respondent in favour of the two Appellants in the present appeals. The details of the cheques are as follows: (i) Cheque No. 297251 dated 03.06.2013 drawn on Indusind Bank, Indore for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en all its responsibility would remain of the selling party and the payment of cheques would be after the resolution of the said disputes. 9. The High Court held that a suit in respect of the land, Civil Suit No. 4-A of 2012 is pending before the XIVth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore since 2 September 2011 in which the complainants are arraigned as parties. 10. On this basis, the High Court held that under the terms of Clause 4 of the agreement, the cheques could not have been presented for payment. The cheques, according to the High Court, have not been issued for creating any liability or debt but for the payment of balance consideration. Holding that the Respondent did not owe any money to the complainants, the complaint Under Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly enforceable contract between the parties to it. A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138. 14. Moreover, acting on the General Power of Attorney, the Respondent entered into a subsequent 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. 15. 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 cheq....