Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1321 - DELHI HIGH COURTGrant of Leave to Appeal - Return of cheque on the ground of 'stop payment' - denial of legally recoverable debt - it was claimed that the cheque was issued to book the deal in respect of the land, which being cancelled, the order of stop payment was given - Held that:- It was only in the legal notice that it was claimed for the first time that a friendly loan of ₹ 12 lacs had been advanced to the accused by the respondent. No details with regard to the same had been furnished; no receipt had been produced; it was not disclosed as to how the said loan was disbursed; when it was disbursed; to whom it was disbursed, and; where it was disbursed. He submits that the accused was a stranger to the petitioner and its director. Admittedly, the director of the petitioner had met the accused only on 26.10.2009 at the time of execution of the sale deed - Even though it was claimed that the said liability is reflected in the audited balance sheet of the petitioner company, the same was not produced. It appears rather strange that someone who is purchasing a property worth ₹ 1,72,26,000/- would obtain a "friendly" loan from the seller of the property - who is a stranger. The entire sale consideration was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. When such a large amount of ₹ 1,72,26,000/- flowed from the account of the accused and his wife, it does not make sense for the accused to obtain a loan of ₹ 12 lacs from the complainant. Even if one were to imagine that the accused was short of ₹ 12 lacs, and the complainant was willing to accommodate the accused, the sale deed would have recorded that the balance amount of ₹ 12 lacs would be payable after sometime. The averment of the petitioner in the complaint is bald and devoid of any particulars as to how the legally recoverable debt had arisen. The respondent having raised a probable defence, the presumption against the respondent stood dislodged. It is well settled that the Court would not grant leave to appeal, where neither material evidence and circumstances have been ignored, nor inconsequential circumstance have been given prominence more than what is required. The Court would not grant leave to appeal where the conclusion drawn is not found to be so illogical that no person would draw the same - Leave to appeal can be granted where, it is shown that the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is perverse, or there is mis application of law or any legal principle. Petition dismissed.
|