Kayo Enterprises Pvt Ltd & ORS. v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~15 to 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5089/2023, CRL.M.A. 19330/2023 KAYO ENTERPRISES PVT LTD & ORS.

.... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Abhishek, Advocate.

versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State with SI Jitender Sngh, P.S. Malviya Nagar.

16.

CRL.M.C. 5190/2023, CRL.M.A. 19761/2023 KAYO ENTERPRISES PVT LTD & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Abhishek, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State with SI Jitender Sngh, P.S. Malviya Nagar.

17.

CRL.M.C. 6344/2023, CRL.M.A. 23766/2023 KAYO ENTERPRISES PVT LTD & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Abhishek, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State with SI Jitender Sngh, P.S. Malviya Nagar.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI % 28.05.2024

O R D E R

1.

Since the parties in the petitions are common and common submissions have been addressed, the above-noted petitions are taken up for consideration and disposed of vide this common order. 2.

Petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the NI Act, seek quashing of Complaint Case Nos. 4170/2020 and 5229/2020 as well as the summoning orders dated 05.03.2021 passed in the aforementioned complaint cases. It is submitted that impugned orders are challenged on the premise that parties had entered into a Settlement Agreement w.r.t a case registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 has failed to adhere to the terms of the settlement, and therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay any sums under the subject cheques. 3.

The petitions are resisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 who states that the subject cheques were issued towards the comprehensive settlement of Rs.6.75 crores. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has not only invested money for building Esquire Club at Samrat Hotel but has also provided his expertise for running the same. It is further submitted that petitioners had made part payment out of the existing liability of Rs.6.75 crores, however, the subject cheques for Rs.50,000/- each got dishonoured. 4.

On hearing learned counsels for the parties, it emerges that the issue as to whether the subject cheques issued in terms of the settlement The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

agreement, which both party claim that the other has failed to perform, is a disputed question of fact which requires trial by leading evidence by the respective party. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to entertain present petitions and the same are dismissed alongwith pending applications. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 28, 2024 ga The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.