SUDHEER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sudheer Kumar Gupta
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted that there was an unregistered agreement to sell executed on 02.11.2004 for a land admeasuring 40 Bighas situated in Haridar and the sale deed whereof had to be executed on 25.12.2004 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/ - (Rupees Three Crore only) and out of this amount, Rs. 50,00,000/ - (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) were paid by respondent no. 3 Sachin Gupta to the vendor Sudheer Kumar Gupta (petitioner) and Arun Kumar Leela. They were office bearers of a Company known as M/s Hariparvat Marry Land and Resorts Ltd. having its registered office at New Delhi. It is also pertinent to mention that petitioner Sudheer Kumar Gupta and Arun Kumar Leela are residents of Haridwar and Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) respectively.
(2.) SOMEHOW , sale deed could not be executed on the dated fixed. Later on, some more payment was made by the prospective purchaser to the seller. Thus, total Rs. 1,75,00,000/ -(Rupees One Crore Seventy Five Lakh only) were given by respondent no. 3 till 2005 as a part consideration. Even then, the sale deed could not be executed, then after deliberations a notarized settlement deed was executed between the parties on 13.05.2010 and it was contemplated in the Covenant that if Sudheer Kumar Gupta and his associates fail to execute the sale deed within next six months, then they will return Rs. 3,50,00,000/ - (Rupees Three Crore Fifty Lakh only), in cash, to Sachin Gupta or otherwise, the latter will be at liberty to get the sale deed executed by legal process. Settlement Deed could not yield any result, consequently, Sachin Gupta lodged a report dated 07.10.2012, which is impugned in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently harped upon his argument that failure to make compliance of the terms of Settlement Deed could have invoked civil jurisdiction of the court and Sachin Gupta was not justified in lodging the report against petitioner evoking criminal action against him.
(3.) WITHOUT making any comment or observation on either aspect of the matter, this Court feels that counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 and Investigating Officer be called within three weeks.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.