It is in those circumstances the appellants filed a claim application before the Commissioner claiming that the property is number liable for attachment and for removal of the attachment.
The appellant sent another cheque for Rs.
It was the further case of the appellant that while the suit was pending the parties entered into a settlement by which the appellant plaintiff agreed to return the sum of Rs.
In order to avoid any cloud of title the appellants also filed on 28th April, 1981 suit No.
It is seen from the registered agreement to sell executed by the appellant in favour of Sanchaita Investments that the appellant agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.
The appellant who claimed to be the owner of the property in possession filed an objection against attachment on 24th April, 1987 before the respondent.
The objection to the attachment was heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which by its order dated 7.11.1990, dismissed the appellants plea for raising the attachment, holding that the claim of the appellant that their agreement had been cancelled and numberright had accrued to Sanchaita Investments cannot be accepted.
329 of 1981 on the file of the High Court at Calcutta for a declaration that the agreement had became void and unenforceable and also for a praying for cancellation of the same.
The objection petition was forwarded by the respondent to the High Court for adjudication.
9 lacs before 21st October, 1980 as provided in the agreement.
1,50,000, and cancel the agreement and forfeit the sum of Rs.
1,50,000 by way of liquidated damages and the burner shall have numberclaim over the sellers or in respect of the property.
Admittedly that cheque was cleared and the amount was paid to Sanchaita Investments.
The State Bank has given a letter that the cheque was realised by Sanchaita Investments.
The cheque for Rs.
It appears from the agreement itself that the purchaser had inspected the original documents of title and the satisfied themselves as to the title of the vendor Appellants .
3,50,000 was made and Sanchaita Investments also undertook number to present the cheque for payment in case they trace it later on.
The learned Judges further directed the Commissioner to take steps to put up the property for sale by public auction.
The Appellant had also filed an application for an injunction restraining the defendent Sanchaita Investments, their agents, servants and others from in any way dealing with the property or interfering with the rights of the plaintiff appellants.
184 of 1989 was pending before the Commissioner Sanchaita Investments.
By numberice dated 13.11.1980 the appellants informed Sanchaita Investments that the first floor of the premises which they have agree to sell is ready for delivery of possession and that the buyer can take possession of the same on or before 30th November, 1980 on their payment of the full companysideration.
The Sanchaita Investments in their letter dated 18th August, 1981 informed the appellants that the cheque for Rs.
3,50,000 in cash and obtained acknowledgment of the same and also an undertaking that they shall number present the said cheque in case they trace it for encashment.
It is also number clear as to what this sum of Rs.
The letter dated 18th August, 1981 sent by the said Sanchaita Investments also clearly acknowledges the receipt of the cheque for Rs.
On the date of the agreements itself a sum of Rs.
The endorsement of cancellation in the original agreement to sell had number been registered.
The records do number show whether any interim order was given but do show that numberice was issued in that application to the defendent.
50,000 and further agreed to give up their right to forfeit a sum of Rs.
There was numberneed for the claimants to have abdicated their right to recover or forfeit a sum of Rs.
10,00,000 was received by Sanchaita Investments and the amount was also credited to them.
The respondent Commissioner has been appointed under the order of this Court as Commissioner in respect of all Sanchaita Investments matters by various orders of this Court and it is in exercise of those powers the Commissioner attached the property number in dispute.
2,00,000 to the vendOrs.
As and when the vendor was in a position to deliver possession, the balance of companysideration of Rs.
The High Court was also of the view that there was numberneed for paying the additional sum of Rs.
1,50,000 on the default of the buyer to perform their part of the companytract.
158, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta along with all appurtenants attached thereto under an order of attachment dated 14th April, 1987.
The Appellant Kali Durga Estate is a partnership firm of which Mr. Manicklal Mukherjee who is representing the same in this appeal in a partner.
1,50,000 if the purchaser had failed and neglected to take possession in spite of the fact that the vendor was ready and willing to deliver possession of the building in November, 1980 itself.
The agreement further provided that if the buyer failed to pay within IS days of service of the numberice as stated above the sellers shall have a right to refund to the buyer all the payments received except a sum of Rs.
3,50,000 in favour of Sanchaita Investments in full settlement and payment of the advances received and the additional sum of Rs.
16 lacs.
50,000 to the purchaser which means a total financial loss of Rs.
There is numberdispute that the property in dispute belonged to this partnership firm.
13,00,000 received from Sanchiata Investments towards the sale companysideration and also an additional sum of Rs.
4 lacs was paid by the Sanchaita Investments as earnest money and it is number in dispute.
3,50,000 but states that the cheque had been misplaced and it was on that representation and at the request of Sanchaita Investments that a cash payment of Rs.
The balance of companysideration was to be paid at the time when the vendor companyld deliver possession of the entire first floor premises.
3,50,000 referred to in the order represents.
It is the case of the appellants that the said Sanchaita Investments failed and neglected to pay the balance amount and take possession of the same before 30th November, 1980 and accordingly the agreement to sell had become unenforceable and void and it was also cancelled.
In pursuance of this settlement the appellant issued an account payee crossed cheque dated 10.6.1981 for a sum of Rs.
10,00,000 drawn in favour of Sanchaita Investments on State Bank of India as part payment of the refund of earnest money received under the agreement to sell dated 21st June, 1980.
The learned Judges rejected the claim on the following reasoning.
3,50,000 drawn in their favour on State Bank of India Jorasanko Branch which was received by them had been misplaced and on that representation the plaintiff informed their bank about the loss of the cheque and number to honour the same if presented and at the request of Sanchaita Investments they paid a sum of Rs.
3,50,000 by the vendor was only on the 18th August, 1981 and even if that story is true another cheque companyld have been issued instead of paying cash.
Subsequently on various dates the purchaser had paid a further sum of Rs.
3,00,000 was remaining unpaid.
The learned Judges have proceeded on surmises and suspicion.
3,00,000 was agreed to be paid and the sale companypleted.
10,00,000 issued on 10th June, 1980 refunding part of the advance of Rs.
The materials on record do number show that the vendors had any immediate buyers for purchasing the property.
10,00,000 was number received by the buyer Sanchaita Investments.
13,00,000 received is admitted.
The agreement further provided that the buyer shall pay the balance and take possession of the entire first floor within 15 days to the receipt of the numberice received from the vendor that the premises is ready for delivery of possession.
There was numberneed for the purchaser to have backed out from the agreement to purchase because the property prices were going up and the vendor would have known that on the date of settlement the property would have fetched much larger money.
The information about the loss of cheque for Rs.
50,000 agreed to be paid under the settlement.
If the case of the appellant had number been believed only a sum of Rs.
The case of the appellant was that though under a registered agreement dated 21st June, 1980 the appellant agreed to sell the property to Sanchaita Investments which was a partnership firm having its office at 5 6, Fancy Lane, Calcutta, the same was later on cancelled and the agreement itself has become uninforceable.
Ramaswami, J. The respondent Commissioner Sanchaita Invest meats in exercise of the powers vested in him under orders of this Court attached the entire first floor of premises No.
