Rahul Narang vs Harinder Singh

S. No.,Cheque no.,Dated,Amount

1.,833882,15.12.2007,"5,15,000/-

2.,833882,01.01.2012(5th years),"5,92,000/-

3.,833824,01.01.2016 (9th years),"6,81,000/-

-sd-

(RAHUL NARANG)

15/12/07","-sd- and 15/12/2007

Accepted in full and final

HARINDER SINGHâ€​",,

518/2007 pertaining to said property wherein it was directed to maintain the status quo in relation to the user of said property. Also is the defence of,,,

defendant that on becoming aware of said facts regarding dispute in the property, defendant asked for refund of his amount already paid as deal",,,

remained incomplete and could not be matured as per brokerage agreement Ex. PW1/1 dated 01.11.2007. The defendant has neither filed nor proved,,,

any certified copies of Order of High Court of Delhi in the afore elicited OMP 518/2007. No cogent evidence has been led by defendant that M/s.,,,

Swim Point was neither authorised nor legally competent to execute any agreement with respect to the said place and / or defendant could not in any,,,

manner open a gymnasium in the said property.,,,

 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx,,,

As per Ex. PW1/1, the plaintiff was only to facilitate maturning of deal (agreement) between defendant and other party for running of gymnasium.",,,

Defendant in Ex. PW1/2 categorically admitted of maturing of said deal (agreement) signed between him and M/s. Swim Point for operation and,,,

maintenance of gymnasium at Pacific Sports Complex, at Kendriya Vidyala, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. Cash in installments in lieu of cheque of Rs.",,,

5,15,000/- bearing no. 833822 dated 15.12.2007 was paid by defendant to plaintiff.",,,

For completing his part of the agreement Ex. PW1/1, the plaintiff PW1 had been instrumental in maturing the promised deal (agreement) interse",,,

defendant and M/s. Swim Point for operation Kendriya Vidyala, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi for a period of 15 years on mutually agreed terms. The",,,

party entering into such deal before concludingthe agreement needs to be beware and take all precautions whatsoever and is always at liberty to put in,,,

any kind of default clause for defaulting party. Be that as it may, fact remains it is proved on record that defendant had entered into an agreementwith",,,

M/s. Swim Point for operation and maintenance of gymnasium at Pacific Sports Complex, at Kendriya Vidyala, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi for a",,,

period of 15 years on mutually agreed terms, as is borne out of Ex. PW1/2 and admitted by DW1. Accordingly, plaintiff becomes entitled for the sums",,,

promised by defendant for which he had given the post dated cheques on 15.12.2007 to plaintiff as elicited in detail hereinabove in the averments of,,,

Ex. PW1/2. The defendant/DW1 had stopped the payment of cheque Ex. PW1/3 of Rs. 5,92,000/- in question. Plaintiff is held entitled for sum of Rs.",,,

5,92,000/- from defendant. Plaintiff was working for gain and transaction was commercial in nature. In the fact of the matter, having regard to nature",,,

of the commercial transaction between the parties, finding it expedient, in the interest of justice, plaintiff is accordingly held entitled for interest @ 12%",,,

per annum on sum of Rs. 5,92,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realisation from defendant. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the",,,

plaintiff and against the defendant.â€​ (underlining added),,,

I do not find any illegality or perversity whatsoever in the impugned judgment and this Court is therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned,,,

judgment as this Court accepts the reasoning and conclusion given by the trial court for decreeing the suit, and as stated above.",,,

Counsel for the appellant/defendant sought to argue that the Negotiable Instruments Act case filed under Section 138 by the respondent/plaintiff,,,

against the appellant/defendant was dismissed, and therefore, it was argued that the said suit also had to be dismissed, however besides the fact that",,,

there are no such documents on record even if the documents were on record in law the judgment in a criminal case does not operate as res judicata,,,

or binds the civil court to decide the cause of action and issue of entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff to commission.,,,

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant then sought to argue that the appellant/defendant could not enter into a proper lease deed as M/s,,,

Swim Point did not have the necessary documents and to which argument in para 16 of the impugned judgment it is noted that no such documents,,,

were filed by the appellant/defendant, and therefore, no argument can be urged on such basis. This argument of the appellant/defendant is also",,,

therefore rejected.,,,

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.",,,