NARINDER SAXENA Vs. MEENU SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the one hand, the petitioner has sought the appointment of an Arbitrator for settling the dispute while the respondent has through application under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code called for action against the petitioner for forgery and fraud committed upon the Court.

(2.) As per the agreement to sell, the balance of consideration amount of Rs. 64 lakhs was to be received by the respondent on the completion of the transaction and the full and final payment was to be received by the respondent on or before 31/12/1998 and Rs. 45 lakhs was payable on or before 26/10/1997. It is alleged that even before the date of final payment to be received on 31/12/1997, Shri B.L. Chawla purporting to acting on 18/12/1997 with a view to avoid and wriggle out of the transaction by giving option either to complete the sale and receive the balance amount of consideration or refund the amount of advance received by the applicant as per terms and conditions of the agreement.

(3.) However it is contended that the aforesaid notice was not only pre-mature but was a deliberate attempt to avoid the transaction with a view to raise dispute in future and avoid payment for the balance amount in the manner as agreed to between the parties i.e. out of Rs. 64 lakhs, Rs. 45 lakhs was to be paid before the final payment and remaining Rs. 19 lakhs on or before 31/12/1997.