How could "A" file a case against B and C.
BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
(Querist) 23 May 2011
This query is : Resolved
Respected Experts,
I want to clear off the following doubt.
A (purchaser) paid token advance of Rs.1 Lakh to “B” (land owners) and executed a Receipt acknowledging the said amount in a landed transaction. Subsequently the said transaction was cancelled and that “B’ is agreed to pay back the advance amount to “A”.
Accordingly at the request of “B”, “A” has sent the Original Cash Receipt through “C” (Mediators). While giving the said receipt, “A” has taken an endorsement from “C” on the back side of the Xerox copy of the said receipt stating that “”C” has received the original receipt”.
Due to non receipt of the said amount, even after taking the original receipt, “A” made an enquiry about the payment. And that subsequently, “A” came to know that “B” has already paid the said amount to “C”. And when “A” questioned about the said payment, “C” has replied that he has already received the said amount and he will pay back the same within a short period of time. Even after repeated demands made by “A”, “C” has refused to pay back the same. In the mean time, “A” got issued a legal notice to B and C, but they did not give any reply or made the payment.
So at this juncture, “A” what should do against “B” and “C”. Can “A” file a Criminal Case against B and C.?
Plz. Suggest me.
Guest
(Expert) 23 May 2011
If you have formally authorised C to receive payment from B, you can sue C, not B, as any arrangement is between A & C.
But, if you have not authorised C to receive payment and even then B has made payment to C, you can sue B. Mere handing over of original receipt to C on signature on the photocopy would not stand any proof of payment to C.
BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
(Querist) 24 May 2011
Respected Dhingra Ji,
Namaskar. Thanks for giving your valubale suggession.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 24 May 2011
But my view is, A can sue against B only. Can't proceed against C. Because c acted on behalf of B only. Whether b handed over the money to c or not. Its not an issue to you. B have to refund the money to A. So A can file a money suit against B. A transaction between B and C is true mean B can file a civil or criminal case against C. But surely A can not file case against C.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 24 May 2011
Dear Mr. Tom,
Let us understand the practical aspect of the transaction and also the applicability of law.
Here currently Mr. "A" does not possess any receipt granted by "B". The original receipt is with "B" now.
If "A" sues "B" for the amount, "B" will take a stand, and rightly so, that he had already returned the amount to "A".
Further, the very fact that "A" returned the Original receipt through "C" to "B", impliedly authorises "C" to receive the payment from "C". In any case "B" will say that he has returned the amount and he will also produce the Original receipt returned by "A". Worst comes worst, if legally advised, "B" will not even talk or mention about "C".
According to you "A" has to file a money suit against "B". OK. What is the document on the basis of which "A" will file the money suit against "B"?
Guest
(Expert) 24 May 2011
Dear Bala ji,
You are welcome.
Guest
(Expert) 24 May 2011
Dear Tom,
It all depends upon formal authority or verbal communication between the A, B, & C. Naturally law would ask for documentary proof only. Any one can go back from his verbal commitment very easily to save his skin.
BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
(Querist) 25 May 2011
Respected Experts,
Thanks for sharing the detailed discussions in solving an issue. I very much thankfull to you all, as it could help me in future.
Guest
(Expert) 26 May 2011
Dear Bala Subrahmanyam,
You can adopt another strategy also to get your amount out of C. Ask him to give you post dated cheques in your own name, so that you can present cheques in the bank and get those dishonoured, if no balance is there in his accounts and then sue her under sec 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. That way he will have to pay you money, if he would not get punished by imprisonment.
