TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Vada Vellore Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District, comprised in T.S. No.178 admeasuring to an extent of 1 acres 55 cents, T.S. No. 175 admeasuring to an extent of 5 acres 21 cents, T.S. No. 58, admeasuring to an extent of 1 acre 44 cents, T.S. No.172 admeasuring to an extent of 34 cents and T.S. No.173 admeasuring to an extent of 66 cents, in total 8 acres 11 cents, owned by one V. Sundararajan and his family members. They let out the said property in their favour by a Lease Deed dated 09.08.2010. The said property was let out for the purpose of running scooter stand or any other purpose as desired by them. They were put in possession and they are in possession till now. When the lease deed was subsisting, the lessor had intended to sell the property to an extent of 7 acres 10 cents out of 8 acres 11 cents to the respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 2690 of 2019. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 30,88,50,000/-. They had entered into an agreement for sale on 18.10.2010. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs. 2 crores was paid as advance and the remaining sale consideration was payable as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. In the agreement for sale it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents had executed three distinct sale deeds in favour of the first accused floated by the second accused on 14.03.2014 by the original owner of the property viz., the investor. On the same day, they had also executed the sale agreement in favour of the respondents that they are selling the very same land for a sale consideration of Rs.60 crores. However, the physical possession of the subject property continuously vests with the respondents. As per the agreement, the respondents have to obtain building sanction plan from the appropriate authorities and they have given power to develop the subject property. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 14.03.2014, the respondents have to sell the property within a reasonable time. Thereafter, they settled the said sum of Rs. 60 crores to the first accused and only after getting an approval of the building sanction plan. Accordingly, the respondents had obtained sanction plan by spending huge amount for 1,77,000 sq. ft. out of 3,00,850 sq. ft. After the sanction plan was approved by the local Town Planning Authority, Vellore and it was forwarded to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, who in turn, forwarded th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt within a period of one month. However, they had paid only a sum of Rs.6.50 crores on various dates upto December, 2017. In the mean while, the political parties attempted to take the physical possession of the subject property. However, it was failed and as instructed by them, the accused created and fabricated documents, in order to dispossess the respondents from the subject property. They had prepared documents and forcibly obtained signatures from the respondents and the documents signed are back dated documents. They also assured that they will settle the entire amount as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.09.2017. After signing the said documents, the accused issued post dated cheque bearing 287664 dated 07.08.2018 for a sum of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- and also issued another cheque bearing No. 287663 for the very same date for a sum of 2,70,00,000/- drawn on AXIS Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai, in favour of the respondents. Both the cheques were presented for collection and the same were returned with an endorsement "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". The respondents issued statutory notice on 03.09.2018. The notice was returned with an endorsement "Left". Thereafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heques were issued only on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.09.2017. Whatever the development done by the respondents and the amount spent for obtaining Government Order, planning approval and sanction, they agreed to settle the said amount to the respondents as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.09.2017. Therefore, both the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt. Though the petitioners maintained their account with cheque amount only in order to cheat the respondents issued stop payment instructinsand thereby dishonoured the cheques. 9. He further submitted that Section 139 introduces an exception (to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, which requires the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Directorate and another. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. The petitioners are arrayed as A1, A2 & A4. The first accused is a partnership firm and others are partners of the first accused. The points arise for consideration in these two petitions are that (i) Whether the cheques were issued for any legally enforceable debt. (ii) Whether the petitioners are liable to be punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when they had stopped payment and maintaining their account with the cheque amount. 14. The petitioners had purchased the subject property by a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.2014 vide document Nos. 3154, 3155 and 3156 of 2014. The respondents were entered into an agreement for lease with the original owner of the property on 18.10.2010. Subsequently, the said property was purchased by the petitioners. However, according to the respondents, they are in possession of the subject property. They were entrusted with the works i.e., to remove the unauthorised encroachments, trespassers, demolishing old buildings therein, removing debris and rubbish, levelling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Seventy Lakhs Only), vide Cheque bearing No. 287663 dated 07.08.2018, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai in favour of Mr. B. Ramamoorthy. (ii) A sum of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores and Twenty Lakhs Only), vide Cheque bearing No. 287664 dated 07.08.2018, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai in favour of Mr. J. Jayaprakash. 7. Our Client states that you successfully played fraud and cheated our Clients. You dishonestly induced our client to hand over their hard earned money to you. Our Client states that their shock and surprise, they found that the work as represented and promised by you had not been carried at all. The very little work which had been done at the site also was done with lowest quality materials and the work was not executed in proper form. In fact, the work done by you has lowered and brought down the value of the property belonging to out client. 8. Our Client states that they had informed you immediately regarding the inferior quality of work done on your part and also that most of the work had not been carried out at all despite having taken money for the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ients released the balance sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Only) after deducting the TDS amounts, as follows: i. A sum of Rs. 2,70,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Seventy Lakhs Only), vide Cheque bearing No. 287663 dated 07.08.2018, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai in favour of Mr. B. Ramamoorthy. ii. A sum of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores and Twenty Lakhs Only), vide Cheque bearing No. 287664 dated 07.08.2018, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, Chennai in favour of Mr. J. Jayaprakash i.e., your client. 9. Our Clients state that your client and Mr. B. Ramamoorthy successfully played fraud and cheated our Clients. Your client and Mr. B. Ramamoorthy dishonestly induced our clients to hand over their hard earned money to your client and Mr. B. Ramamoorthy. Our Clients state that to their shock and surprise, they found that the work as represented and promised by your client and Mr. B. Ramamoorthy had not been carried at all in the site. Only the very little work which had been done at the site also was done with lowest quality materials and the work was not executed in proper form. In fact, the work done by your client and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reed to be paid by them and it is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. There is no reason to give such a huge amount to the respondents. They also subsequently contended that neither the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable as there is no legally enforceable debt due to the respondents and the stop payment of cheque was clearly informed in advance to the respondents despite there being sufficient amount in their bank accounts. Therefore, the alleged cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt. In fact, the petitioners also taking steps to file a suit for recovery of Rs.50 crores as damages against the respondents and also intended to file a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC. 20. Admittedly, the respondents presented the cheques after receipt of notice by the petitioners dated 19.07.2018, thereby called upon the respondents not to present the cheques and also issued stop payment notice to their banker. Therefore, both the cheques were returned for the reason "payment stopped by the drawer". The petitioners also produced their statement of accounts for the period from 01.08.2018 to 31.08.2018. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner repeatedly submitted the complaints in respect of the very same issue. On the enquiry, petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property which measuring 7 acres and 10 cents and running partnership firm in the name and style of Sai City Centre. In fact, the petitioners also filed direction-petition before this Court in Crl.O.1290 of 2019 for transfer of investigation to CBI and the same was disposed on 21.01.2019. Once again the petitioners filed another petition in Crl. O.P. No. 10280 of 2019 for registration of complaint dated 14.03.2019. Again this Court by an order dated 16.04.2019 dismissed the same with direction to follow the guideline issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners without following guideline issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court now filed this writ petition. It is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court. Further on the complaint detailed enquiry was conducted and the same was closed and the closure report was also served to the petitioners herein. Therefore, this writ petition devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount arranged to be paid from that account by an arrangement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, 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 thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid ; and (c) the drawer of the such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due curse of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation : For th....