Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 431 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - section 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the petitioner was running Electro-plating business under the name and style, Lakshmi Venkatesh Electro-platers. The respondent claimed that he was visiting to the petitioner's factory that is how he was acquainted with the petitioner. According to the notice Ex.P7 and the complaint, the petitioner borrowed loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- in December, 2002 to improve his business and another sum of ₹ 75,000/- in March, 2003 from the respondent and towards discharge of that liability he issued Cheque Ex.P2 for ₹ 2,75,000/- on 12.06.2003 - The respondent presented the Cheque for the first time on 13.06.2003 which was returned on 14.06.2003 with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds". The respondent claimed that when he approached the petitioner informing him about the dishonour of the Cheque, petitioner requested him to wait till 02.07.2003 promising to arrange the funds. Therefore, he presented the Cheque second time on 02.07.2003 which was returned with the endorsement "account closed". The respondent in his notice Ex.P7 had given all the particulars of the Cheque number, if the Cheque was issued to Chennappa, the petitioner could have taken such defence at the earliest point of time in his reply notice. Further though the accused in the evidence claimed that he has taken action against Chennappa by filing complaint before Nelamangala Police, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. Therefore the trial Court and the first appellate Court rightly rejected the theory of Cheque being issued to Chennappa. Rebuttal of Presumption - HELD THAT:- In the cross-examination of PW1, petitioner only asked whether PW1 could produce his SB account passbook or the account extract. There was no specific denial of respondent's autorickshow business. In the later part of the cross-examination, it was only suggested that the respondent was not possessing the funds of ₹ 2,75,000/- which he denied. When possession of 5 - 6 autorickshaws and running of the business etc was not disputed, the mere suggestion that he was not possessing funds does not rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. This Court does not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders of the Courts below - Petition dismissed.
|