DEALGOOD BUILDERS & DESIGNERS P LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case as per petition being Crl. M.C No. 3584/2011 are that Shri Amit Kishor Verma, respondent No. 2 approached the petitioner and represented that he was in need of funds required to be deposited by him in the court in compliance of the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. It was suggested by respondent No.2 that one M/s Om Sai Nath Construction Pvt. Ltd. who is the owner of property admeasuring 502.32 sq. yds. known as Sai Regency bearing No. C - 6/1, DLF Qutub Enclave, Phase -I, Arjun Marg, Gurgaon. The said property was seized by the IO in case FIR Nos. 179/2009, 180/2009 and 32/2010 and he had been granted permission to sell the said property by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 1st October, 2010. The respondent No. 2 was desirous of selling the said property in order to meet his financial need.

(2.) IN view of such offer made by the respondent No.2, the petitioner agreed to purchase the property in question on 'as is where is basis' for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5.15 crores who made token/bayana payment of Rs. 1.00 lac in cash to the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 executed and signed a handwritten Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 14th December, 2010 containing schedule of payment, the brief terms and conditions which are mutually agreed between the parties are mentioned.

(3.) THE respondent No.2 needed Pay Order for Rs. 4.50 crores for depositing in the court in compliance of the court order. The petitioner arranged Pay Order/Banker's Cheque No. 014702 dated 16th December, 2010 drawn on Yes Bank Ltd., South Extension -II branch for Rs. 4.50 crores in favour of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts. Even he handed over photocopy of the said Pay Order to respondent No. 2 who was assured to handover the original Pay Order to him after getting clearance/sanction for sale of the property at the time of execution of Sale Deed. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 executed Agreement of Sale dated 16th December, 2010 in favour of M/s Dealgood Builders and Designers Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was stated that permission to sell the property in question was granted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts vide order dated 1st October, 2010 in FIR Nos. 179/2009, 180/2009 and 32/2010. The petitioner was assured by the respondent No. 2 to comply with all necessary requirements and to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner's company.