J T THANAWALA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise out of the same transaction and are, therefore, heard and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Crl.M.C. Nos. 4983-87/2006 are mentioned below:

(2.) The respondent No. 2 entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement dated 28.12.2002 with the petitioner No. 5 herein, Geep Batteries (India) Pvt. Ltd., for sale of its business of batteries, torches and flash light under the brand name 'GEEP'. They also entered into a supplementary agreement dated 19.9.2003 in respect of transfer of inventory, etc. Various post-dated cheques were issued to the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the petitionerNo. 5. The total consideration involved in these two agreements was approximately Rs. 40 crores out of which Rs. 36 crores has admittedly been paid by the petitioner No. 5. Subsequently, certain disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner No. 5 issued 'Stop Payment' instructions to its bankers in respect of the remaining post-dated cheques. On the threats extended by the respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the agreement and disposing of the intellectual property assets, the petitioner No. 5 filed a petition before this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Vide judgment and order dated 7.4.2005, this Court restrained the respondent No. 2 from disposing of the intellectual property assets, etc. This Court further permitted the respondent No. 2 to withdraw Rs. 1.5 crores deposited by the petitioner No. 5 in the Court. It may be noted here that the dispute was also referred to an Arbitral Tribunal. Despite the instructions given by the petitioner No. 5 to its bankers for 'Stop Payment', the respondent No. 2 kept on presenting the post-dated cheques and began filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On the complaints filed by the respondent No. 2, the learned trial Court issued summons for their personal appearance and imposed costs. Feeling aggrieved by those orders, these petitions are filed with various prayers.

(3.) Firstly, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were granted permanent exemption from personal appearance in cases pending before other Courts below, details whereof are mentioned at para 5 (page 6) of the petition, and in certain cases bail was granted and costs were also imposed. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that even in the arbitration proceedings neither of the parties filed claim or counter claim till date. It is stated that the matter is being adjourned before the Arbitral Tribunal for the past six dates solely because of the representations made by the parties that their dispute is likely to be settled.