ANIL KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. M.K. KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Nidhi Industries of Janakpuri, New Delhi, were to supply one lac vest woolen of 95 cm. size to Defence Ministry for Rs. 54 lacs at the rate of Rs. 54/- per piece. In turn they agreed to purchase the vest woollen aforesaid from M/s. M.K. Khosla Family Traders of Ludhiana at the rate of Rs. 51.50 paise a piece. Balance of Rs. 2.50 per piece was their profit. A sum of Rs. 50 lacs has admittedly been paid by M/s. Nidhi Industries to their vendor M/s. M.K. Khosla Family Traders. Balance of rupees 1-1/2 lacs still remains to be paid.

(2.) ON 1st August, 1987 the vendor concerned sent to the purchaser concern a legal notice for recovery of sales-tax and storage charges besides the balance payment aforesaid on the basis of allegedly oral agreement and assurances dated May 18, 1987. As against the claimed payment the vendee is alleged therein to have offered to the vendor a paltry sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of the claim on July 25, 1987. According to the averments made in the notice, this action of the vendee only revealed a mala fide and deceitful intent on this part in his mind.

(3.) CRIMINAL Misc. No. 376-M of 1988 has been filed by Anil Kumar Chopra, one of the proprietors of vendee concern for quashing the summoning order Annexure P.4 dated October 27, 1987. The ground assigned for claiming the desired relief are that letter Annexure P.2 dated August 12, 1987 was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant by way of reply to his legal notice August 1, 1987 and contains reference in regard to the conduct of the respondent-complainant in the course of business transactions, that the words used are a repudiation of the claim preferred in the legal notice, that the communication was addressed bonafide and in good faith by the petitioner for protection of his own business interest and does not constitute a defamation in terms of exception 9 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also stated in the quashing petition that in respect of the same transaction action under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated by the respondent against the petitioner in Delhi courts wherein the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, on August 29, 1987 and five days thereafter on September 3, 1987 the present complaint was filed at Ludhiana.