LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-11

MRS. USHA JAIN Vs. ADITYA LANDCON PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided On September 26, 2017
Mrs. Usha Jain Appellant
V/S
Aditya Landcon Private Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt.Usha Jain is the wife of late Shri D. K. Jain and is the sole beneficiary under the Will dated 11.12.2004 of her deceased husband and as such has filed this company petition.

(2.) The respondent company had entered into an agreement to sale and purchase for total sale consideration of Rs.16.09 Crore in respect of plot bearing No.191, Block B, NOIDA, Phase - II, admeasuring 15000 square meters with the husband of the petitioner, who paid a sum of Rs.5.40 Crore as an advance amount vide a cheque bearing No.486586 dated 20.09.2008 of Rs.5 crore drawn on HDFC Bank and cash of Rs.40 lakhs. The respondent denied receipt of Rs.40 lakh paid in cash. The deal could not be materialise as the respondent company did not give a clean title and in its letter dated 03.02.2009 rather admitted that it had no transferrable title of the property, but it wrongly alleged that the husband of the petitioner had agreed to purchase the property on 'as is where is' basis. The letter dated 03.02.2009 is annexure P-4 to the petition.

(3.) It is alleged due to close relations between the parties, the husband of the petitioner never escalated the matter as the respondent company agreed to return the advance given but could not arrange the funds. The respondent company, under the column of current liability in its balance sheets has reflected this amount as 'advance against property sale', thus admitting the liability towards the petitioner. The copies of the balance sheets for the financial years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13, and 2014-15 along with profit and loss account statement have been filed with petition as annexure P-5 colly. After the sad demise of Sh.D.K.Jain when the said amount was demanded from the respondent company it failed to pay the amount and pleaded non-availability of funds. The petitioner then sent a notice dated 26.06.2014, but the respondent failed to reply. The petitioner also sent a statutory notice dated 17.01.2015 under Section 433/434 of the Companies Act, 1956 calling upon the respondent to repay the amount within 21 days.