PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. AKJ MINERALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 102.7 of Bhajan Lal's case reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held as follows:-

(2.) It is not in dispute that the private opposite party took loan of Rs.2.00 crores from the petitioner. It is not in dispute that out of the said 2 crores, a cheque amounting to Rs.1.00 Crore was dishonoured prompting the petitioner to lodge a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a competent Court of the learned Magistrate. It is not in dispute that in the said case, the opposite party No.2 and its authorized representatives were convicted and sentenced. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the opposite party No.2 and his authorized representatives being the convicts approached the complainant/petitioners for amicable settlement. The terms of settlement clearly mentioned that the petitioners' settlement 'the instant case, i.e. the case filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for bouncing of cheque of Rs.1.00 Crore and they settled the dispute paying a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore and 11 lakhs by issuing a draft on 14/6/1999.

(3.) It is clearly recorded by the representatives of the opposite party, 'there is no dues in this case.' Now games started with regard to the obligation of the opposite party No.2 and its representatives on their liabilities to make payment of remaining loan amount to the tune of Rs.1.00 Crore.