TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is submitted that the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and is wholly owned subsidiary of Anant Raj Industries Limited. The Petitioner was engaged in the business of real estate and Pankaj Nakra was the Authorized Signatory. 3. On 09.12.2006, M/s Anant Raj Industries entered into an Agreement dated 06.12.2006 for sale/purchase of specified land and properties with Somesh Kumar Bishnoi, who in discharge of the liabilities under the said Agreement, issued two Cheques dated 31.05.2008 in the sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and Rs. 62,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, in favour of in favour of the Petitioner/Capital Buildcon Private Limited, which on presentation, were dishonoured for the reasons "funds insufficient". 4. The Petitioner/Capital Buildcon Private Limited filed a Criminal Complaint bearing CC No. 83/2013 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. Somesh Kumar Bishnoi was convicted vide Judgment dated 16.08.2017 and vide Order on Sentence dated 07.09.2017, the Respondent was directed to pay a total Compensation of Rs. 8,73,91,000/- to the Petitioner along with interest @ 6% p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jharsa Road Branch issued by the Respondent in favour of Petitioner's parent company Anant Raj Ltd. iii. Post-dated Cheque No. 000315 dated 10.10.2018 for Rs 1,15,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Gurugram Jharsa Road Branch issued by the Respondent in favour of Petitioner's parent company Anant Raj Ltd. 9. This Court in Criminal M.C. No.4516/2017 against Krishna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.' on 09.01.2018, disposed of the matter while accepting the Settlement Agreement between the parties and directed that "parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement". However, the Petition has been revived on 18.11.2019, due to non -compliance of the terms of the Settlement. 10. Crl. M.C. No. 4511/2017 pertaining to Capital Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.' which was disposed of on 23.01.2019, is pending for revival on account of non-compliance with the terms of Settlement. 11. Ld. ASJ disposed of Criminal Appeal No.22/2017 by M/s Capital Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the Settlement, on 13.02.2018. However, the Criminal Appeal No.23/2017 titled against M/s Krishna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. was consigned sine die as the parties had been referred to Mediation. 12. The Petitioner has fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., made that the Contempt proceedings be initiated against the Respondent and he be punished accordingly. 19. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no wilful disobedience of the Undertaking given by the Respondent and he has full intention to pay the balance amount by December, 2025. Submissions heard and record perused. 20. From the narration of facts as above, it emerges that there are two Complaint Cases under Section 138 NI Act which were filed by the Capital Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner herein) against Somesh Kumar Bishnoi under Section 138 NI Act, in respect of one Cheque each of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (to the Capital Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) and Rs.2,00,00,000/- (to Krishna Buildtech) respectively, which had got dishonoured on presentation, on account of Insufficiency of Funds. 21. The Respondent/Somesh Kumar Bishnoi (in both the cases) was convicted and sentenced in both the Complaints under Section 138 NI Act. The Two Appeals No. 22/2017 and 23/2017 were preferred by before the Court of Sessions Appeal wherein he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,62,00,000/- for Suspension of Sentence (in regard to Criminal Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and the amounts paid by Somesh Kumar Bishnoi, shall stand forfeited. 26. Furthermore, the Second Party/Capital Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner herein) / Krishna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and/or Confirming Party/Anant Raj Industries shall be entitled to proceed with the pending proceedings or initiate further proceedings in accordance with law. 27. As has been noted above, the Respondent had made compliance by payment of major amounts due to the Petitioner under the Settlement Agreement, but only a small amount remains to be paid which is stated to be on account of financial difficulty. 28. The question which thus, arises is whether the circumstances justify initiation of Contempt, in the given circumstances. 29. In the case of Dayawanti vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 110032 (Crl. Ref. No.1/2016) while answering the Reference about the binding nature of the Mediation Settlement, it was answered that in case the Settlement in Mediation is not complied with, the parties shall have two remedies; one is to get the Settlement Order executed under Section 431 read with 421 Cr.P.C. to recover the agreed amount; and/or second option is to enforce the compliance and....