RUNWAL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. YOGESH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,60,40,822/ based on a written contract being the Agreement for Sale of TDR dated 18 th August, 2006 read with the Affidavit cum Declaration and Undertaking dated 18 th August, 2006 and the dishonoured cheques. Some of the relevant facts are set out hereunder :

(2.) By an agreement dated 3 rd August, 2006 between Shiv Shahi Punarvasan Prakalp Limited and the Defendant herein, the said Shiv Shahi Punarvasan Prakalp Limited agreed to sale and transfer to the Defendant herein 3000 sq.mtrs. of TDR under DRC NO. SRA/622/Constn. dated 18 th July, 2006 for the total consideration of Rs.7,55,63,280/ . It appears that out of the consideration amount agreed under the said agreement, Defendant could pay only Rs.42,30,300/ to the said transferor Shiv Shahi Punarvasan Prakalp Limited. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant thereafter approached the Plaintiff for financial help. Pursuant to the negotiations held between Plaintiff and Defendant, on 18 th August, 2006, the Agreement for Sale/transfer TDR came to be arrived at between Plaintiff and Defendant. Under the said Agreement, the Defendant herein agreed to sale TDR of 3000 sq.mtrs. to the Plaintiff and in view thereof, the Plaintiff agreed to pay balance consideration of Rs.7,13,32,980/ to the said Shiv Shahi Punarvasan Prakalp Limited. It is agreed to adjust the sum of Rs. 5,94,17,280/ against the said amount agreed to be paid by the Plaintiff to the said transferor. Defendant herein agreed to pay Rs.1,19,15,700/ to the Plaintiff within 30 days. It addition to the said agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant, the Defendant has also executed an Agreement cum Declaration and Undertaking on 18 th August, 2006. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant issued three post dated cheques of Rs.70 lacs, Rs.34 lacs and Rs. 9 lacs respectively in favour of the Plaintiff. Out of three cheques, only a cheque of Rs.9 lacs came to be honoured. It is the case of the Plaintiff that even those cheques, when deposited, were dishonoured.

(3.) By letter dated 21 st March, 2007, addressed to the Plaintiff, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant had booked a premises orally in the under construction project of the Plaintiff and since the Defendant wanted ready possession of the premises, the Defendant thereafter requested the Plaintiff to cancel the booking of the premises. He requested the Plaintiffs to return the cheques issued by the Defendant. Plaintiff by their letter dated 26 th March, 2007 denied the said allegations and refused to return the cheques. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs states that the Defendants have not filed any proceedings for return of the said cheques. The Plaintiff thereafter issued various notices demanding payment under various dishonoured cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Though the Defendant replied to the notice, it was contended that the cheques issued were in respect of the booking of flats orally made by the Defendant for booking of the flat for in under construction project of the Plaintiffs. Finally, the Plaintiff issued notice on 7 th September, 2009 calling upon the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,40,822/ with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. There is no reply to the said notice. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit and took out Summons for Judgment No.516 of 2009. Defendant is absent though served. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and I have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Defendant.