TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,00,000/- is not a small amount. It is significant to note that no interest was charged and the cheque was only for ₹ 3,50,000/-. It is impossible to believe that the complainant lent ₹ 4,00,000/- without requiring presence of any witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT vs. DATTATRAYA G. HEGDE [2008 (1) TMI 827 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that Courts have to take notice that ordinarily in terms of Section 269-SS. Income Tax Act, any advance taken by way of loan of more than ₹ 20,000/- had to be made by an account payee cheque only. In the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that the complainant has not proved that the cheque in question was issued for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling upon the respondent to pay the amount covered by the cheque and as there was no reply from him, he has filed the complaint. In support of the case of the complainant, he examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. 2. The respondent has taken a plea that he has borrowed a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the complainant in the year 2001 and at the time of taking loan, the complainant obtained unfilled promissory note and unfilled signed cheque from him. He has also alleged that dispute has arisen regarding payment of interest and thereafter, the complainant filled in the cheque and promissory note and has filed the present case. According to him, he has not borrowed ₹ 4,00,000/-from the complainant, as alleged by him on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not filed and no one signed as witness in the said document. The complainant has stated that the respondent has issued a cheque on 16.08.2012 for ₹ 50,000/- in partial discharge of the said loa n, but it was realized only on 16.08.2012, as per Ex.D2, statement of account. However, there is no explanation as to why he has accepted the cheque dated 16.05.2012, when he claimed that the respondent borrowed the amount only on 17.07.2012. This circumstances is sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In order to rebut the presumption, the respondent can rely on the evidence adduced by the complainant. The materials on record would clearly establish that the respondent has raised a probable defence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
