Delhi District Court
M/S Ms Shoes East Ltd vs Smt. Ramrati on 30 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY JINDAL, ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE WEST - 04, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 183/3/15
IN THE MATTER OF :
M/s MS Shoes East Ltd.
A Company duty incorporated under
Indian Companies Act, 1956,
Having its Registered office at:
112A Ekta Enclave, New Delhi110087
Acting Through its Chairman and Managing Director
Sh. Pavan Sachdeva.
............PETITIONER
versus
1 Smt. Ramrati
W/o Sh. Sat Prakash
2 Smt. Geeta
W/o Sh. Mahender
3 Sh. Sat Prakash
4 Sh. Mahender
All residents of:
H.No. 410, Village Rangpuri,
Delhi110037.
........RESPONDENTS
CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 1/9
DATE OF FILING : 23.09.2015
DATE OF ARGUMENT : 11.08.2016
DATE OF ORDER : 30.08.2016
ORDER
1 This is a revision petition filed by above mentioned petitioner against the impugned Order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Ld. MM thereby dismissing the complaint of petitioner.
2 The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner filed complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C bearing CC no. 78/1/14 against four respondents (all respondents herein) with allegations that all the respondents had approached the complainant company through a property dealer for sale of their land with assurances that the said land is free from all kind of litigations or disputes. Thereafter an agreement to sale of the said property was executed between the parties and complainant also made a part payment to the respondents. It is further alleged that after some time, respondents disclosed that there is some litigations on the CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 2/9 property in question and the sale transaction could not be finalized. It is alleged by complainant that respondents have cheated the complainant.
3 Ld. Trial Court after obtaining pre-summoning evidence, vide impugned order dt. 30.07.2015, dismissed the complaint.
4 By way of present petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside as the said order is bad in law and not sustainable. Further that the trial court has not considered the material facts involved in the case. Further that ld. Trial court has proceeded to decide the complaint of the petitioner on the wrong premise that the transaction in question could not be completed due to non issuance of NOC by the concerned department. However the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate that the real reason for non issuance of NOC by the concerned department was some litigation pertaining to land under sale, about which the respondents had not told anything to the petitioner at the time of entering into the agreement to sell dt. 29.09.2012.
CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 3/9 Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that as per settled law, the averments made in the complaint are to be taken as gospel truth. Further that at the stage of issuance of summons on a complaint, the Ld. MM has to see whether a prima facie case exists or not. Further that ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate the dishonest intention and act of the respondents. Alongwith certain other contentions, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgments of different superior courts in MANU/SC/0196/1972, Crl. M.C 4272/2014 & Crl. M.A 16911/2014 (DHC) and Crl. Rev. P. 711/2012 (DHC) in support of his contentions.
5 Notice of the petition was sent to respondents and appearance has been made on behalf of respondents . Ld. counsel for respondents has controverted the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner and submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference.
6 I have heard ld. counsel for petitioner, Ld. CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 4/9 Addl. PP for State and ld. counsel for respondents and carefully perused the record in the light of submissions made before me.
7 On careful perusal of the trial court record, it is found that the copy of admitted agreement to sell and purchase dt. 29.09.2012 is available on record wherein, it is clearly mentioned in clause 4 (a) that the said land is free from all encumbrances, charges, liens, lispendens, attachments, trust, acquisitions, requisitions etc. whatsoever or howsoever and there is no litigation or any other proceedings, dispute pending relating to the said land.
8 The contents of agreement as mentioned above, make it clear that the vendors namely Smt. Ram Rati (respondent no. 1) and Smt. Geeta (respondent no. 2) had made a clear declaration that there was no litigation pending in respect of the property which is subject matter of the agreement to sell.
9 As per above agreement, the balance CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 5/9 consideration was to be paid and sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.01.2013. There was a stipulation that the seller shall be fully responsible to obtain the requisite NOC from the competent authority at his/her/their costs and expenses at least 15 days before the last date of full and final payment and will inform the purchaser after obtaining the NOC through registered post.
10 The complainant was informed by way of legal notice dt. 29.11.2013 that the sellers have made their all efforts to obtain the NOC from the competent authority after resolving the litigation of consolidation of holding but due to bifurcation of revenue courts and thereafter due to the election of Delhi Legislative Assembly, they have failed to obtain the NOC or also in resolving the issue in dispute and due to the above said reasons of litigation, they have failed to obtain the NOC.
11 It is clear from the intimation sent by the respondent no. 1 & 2 vide notice dt. 29.11.2013 that there was some litigation on the land concerned, which has CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 6/9 resulted into non-issuance of NOC for the transaction between the parties. The existence of such litigation has been clearly concealed by the sellers at the time of entering into the agreement to sell and purchase dt. 29.09.2012. They have also received a sum of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rs. Forty one lakhs) from the complainant on the same day when the agreement was executed.
12 The case in hand is not a case pertaining to simple breach of agreement and there is an active concealment of the material facts which has resulted into inducement of the complainant for entering into the agreement and paying heavy amounts to the seller/respondent no. 1 & 2. The respondents cannot be exonerated simply by saying that they could not execute the sale deed as NOC could not be obtained by them. The actual reason for non-issuance of NOC is the litigation over the land in dispute which has been concealed at the time of agreement to sell. May be the complainant would not have agreed to purchase the land of the respondent no. 1 & 2 if the said litigation was disclosed to him and they could have invested the amount in some other CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 7/9 profitable land. The act of concealment of the factum of litigation by the respondent no. 1 & 2 has clearly caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the sellers. The ld. Trial court, while passing the order dt. 30.07.2015 has, though, referred to the want of NOC as the reason behind failure of transaction but it has not taken into consideration the reason behind failure of the seller to get the NOC from revenue authority.
13 In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable and a prima-facie case for the offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against respondent no. 1 & 2 namely Smt. Ram Rati and Geeta, however, there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against other respondents who are neither executants nor the witnesses to the concerned documents.
14 With these observations, the impugned order dt. 30.07.2015 is setaside and the matter is sent back to the trial court with directions to summon the respondents no. 1 & 2 as accused and proceed as per law on CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 8/9 15.09.2016 at 02.00 pm. Parties to appear accordingly.
TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this Order. File of the revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJAY JINDAL) th TODAY i.e.ON 30 August, 2016 ASJ:04:WEST:THC:DELHI 30.08.2016 CR No. 183/3/15 M/s MS Shoes East Ltd. vs. Smt. Ramrati & Ors. PAGE No. 9/9