TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract to sell the suit property by the respondent herein to her. A question which arose for decision was whether the appellant should discharge the mortgage of the suit property created by the respondent in favour of the South Indian Bank. The High Court held that the appellant was liable to discharge the mortgage and directed her to deposit in Court a sum of ₹ 3,50,000 with interest for the purpose. The appellant paid the amount direct to the mortgagee. The High Court refused to accept the payment made directly to the mortgagee as due compliance with its decree and against that order of the High Court the appellant preferred civil Ap- peals Nos. 1993-1994 of 1977. This Court disposed of the said appeals by the following order dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt not having passed orders on her C.M.Ps. Nos. 2424-2425 of 1980 till then, she paid into the High Court a sum of ₹ 6,02,000 on 29 May, 1980 by cheque purporting to comply with the first condition set out in this Court's order aforesaid. C.M.Ps. Nos. 2424 and 2425 of 1980 filed by the appel- lant in the High Court were dismissed by a Single Judge by an order dated 6 June, 1980 against which the appellant preferred Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 947-48 of 1981. The appellant also filed another C.M.P. No. 2875 of 1980 in the High Court for a declaration that she had com- plied with the aforesaid order of this Court dated 29 Novem- ber. 1979 which was dismissed by the High Court. Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1981 has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered in Court on 29 May, 1980 and that it was duly honoured by the Bank and money was realised under the cheque, and therefore it must be taken that payment had been effected by the appellant on 29 May, 1980 within the time stipulated by this Court in its order dated 29 November, 1979. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd. Ogale Wadi, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 429 it was laid down by this Court that payment by cheque realised subsequently on the cheque being honoured and encashed relates back to the date of the receipt of the cheque, and in law the date of payment is the date of delivery of the cheque. Payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present-day life, whether commercial or private, and unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being so, the question whether the appellant had wrongly stated that her counsel had offered to pay cash to the High Court office on 29 May, 1980 ceases to be relevant. We also see no substance in the objection taken before the High Court that in the letter dated 29 May, 1980 addressed by counsel for the appellant forwarding the cheque for ₹ 6,02,000 there was a request for the return of the cheque in case it was found that the appellant was entitled to the set-off claimed by her. The application of the appellant claiming adjustment was pending in Court, and no conclusion can be drawn against her on the ground that she had requested a return of the cheque in the event of the adjustment being allowed by the Court. We are of the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
