TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal loan to the respondent/company and that they had admitted the said liability and agreed to pay back the alleged loan amount to him. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances lends credence to the version of the respondents that the appellant had issued a cheque for ₹ 10 lakh from his personal account in favour of the respondent No.1/Company, but the said payment was in part discharge of the amounts due and payable by his Company towards the price of the goods purchased from the respondents and the said cheque was issued by him because the Company was in financial distress at that time. On a conspectus of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record, it has to be held that the version of the appellant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oan amount was 18% per annum. Relying on the said oral assurance given by the respondents/defendants, the appellant/plaintiff issued cheque No. 511237 dated 09.11.2011 for a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs, in favour of the respondent No.1/Company drawn on Deutsche Bank, New Delhi. The said cheque was duly encashed. After a period of six months, when the appellant/plaintiff approached the respondents/defendants for return of the loan amount with interest, they sought more time and kept on dilly dallying. In the meantime, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that he came to know that the respondents/defendants had taken loans from other persons as well and they were in default. Claiming that the respondents/defendants had failed to pay back the sum of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 431/- in favour of the respondents/defendants towards discharge of their liability, between April, 2012 to June, 2012. All the aforesaid cheques on being presented by the respondents/defendants, were dishonoured in terms of the Return Memo dated 21.6.2012. This had compelled the respondents/defendants to serve a legal notice on the appellant/plaintiff, the other Directors and the Company, who then approached the respondents with a written proposal dated 26.7.2012, reiterating that the Company was passing through a tough financial situation and was unable to release payments on time. They offered a proposal to pay a sum of ₹ 64,01,510/- to the respondents/defendants in nine monthly installments, for adjusting the outstanding payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Ex.DW-1/A). 9. On examining the pleadings in the suit, the documents and the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant holding inter alia that he had failed to prove that an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs was given by him to the respondents as a personal loan or that any interest was payable to him on the said amount. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal. 10. The singular plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has erred in placing reliance on the letter dated 09.11.2011 addressed by M/s Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. to the respondents/defendants, which forms the basis of turning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them against the Company, the appellant/plaintiff and the other Directors under Section 138 of NI Act. The said documents have been referred to and dealt with at some length in para 27 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned trial court has observed that the complaint case was settled between the parties after the accused persons including the appellant herein had paid a sum of ₹ 21 lakhs to the respondents. Nowhere in the said proceedings did the appellant take a plea that he had extended a personal loan to the respondent/company and that they had admitted the said liability and agreed to pay back the alleged loan amount to him. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances lends credence to the version of the respondents that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
