Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 618 - HC - Indian LawsOffence under NI Act - eligibility of judgment of the DRAT - Held that:- The plea taken by the petitioner with respect to the testimony of the Notary Public has been discussed at length by the DRAT and findings were given after appreciating the evidence led by the parties before the DRT. We are inclined to concur with the said findings. The Notary Public is no doubt, an independent witness acting under the authority of law and discharging the duties assigned to him by virtue of the N.I. Act. In the absence of any mala fides or bias, being proved against him, his testimony has more credence over any other witness produced before the Tribunal. We therefore find no illegality on the part of the DRT or the DRAT in relying on the evidence of Shri S.L. Tyagi, the Notary Public whose testimony is also supported by the documents which he had maintained during the course of his work and the attending circumstances. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments in the OA are vague and do not disclose details like the date of presentation of the bills of exchange, the date of discount, the name of the person in the OBC who had returned the bills of exchange unpaid, etc., doesn’t have any force. We find no infirmity in the said findings returned by the DRAT for the reason that the bills of exchange were drawn by the respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner and were accepted by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is the acceptor and the drawee under Section 7 of N.I. Act. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the accounts between petitioner and respondents No.3 stood settled, no claim can be raised against the petitioner, is of no consequence. It is noteworthy that the OA was filed in the year 2014 and the DRT-II had passed an order on 06.01.2014. The petitioner alleges that it had settled its accounts with the respondent No.3 between 09.11.1998 to 01.05.1999. Despite the said version, no such plea was taken by the petitioner in its written statement filed before the DRT-II, in response to the OA of the contesting respondents. Even otherwise, the alleged settlement with the respondent No.3 was much after the date when the bills of exchange were presented to the petitioner by Shri S.K. Tyagi, Notary Public on 23.10.1998 and notice of protest was given. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had been taking contrary stands before the DRT-II and the DRAT and this fact has been noted in the impugned order The argument of the petitioner that the judgment of the DRAT is based on surmises and conjectures is devoid of substance. The DRAT has noted the pleas of the petitioner, as taken before the DRT-II in its written statement and juxtaposed them with the pleas taken in the appeal. The view of the DRAT is therefore not based on surmises and conjectures, but is simply a reproduction of the different and shifting stands taken by the petitioner before different fora. In all opinion that the impugned judgment is based on cogent evidence brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment for interference.
|