TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t/defendant that the subject cheques were given to Sh. Brij Bhushan and not to the respondent/plaintiff and that Sh. Brij Bhushan appeared to have illegally given the subject cheques to the respondent/plaintiff. The cheques are the cheques of the appellant/defendant. The cheques do bear the signatures of the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant pleaded that the cheques were given in blank to Sh. Brij Bhushan but this defence has been rightly found by the trial court to be a complete moonshine and this Court has given an additional reason that if there was a compromise between Sh. Brij Bhushan and the appellant/defendant, then, there was no reason why at the time of compromise, the appellant/defendant would not have taken the che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt/defendant purchased 3,920 kg of aluminium scrap from the respondent/plaintiff at a price of ₹ 111.90 per kg plus 5% VAT totalling to ₹ 4,60,580.40/-. The scrap supplied by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant was acknowledged by the appellant/defendant on 15.1.2011 itself and the appellant/defendant for payment issued two post dated cheques. One cheque was for ₹ 2 lacs dated 15.4.2011 and the other cheque was for an amount of ₹ 2,60,580 dated 30.4.2011. Both the cheques when presented were dishonoured resulting in respondent/plaintiff filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent/plaintiff served a legal notice upon the appellant/defendant dated 25.5.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned judgment by which the leave to defend application of the appellant/defendant has been rightly dismissed. Trial court in my opinion is justified in dismissing the leave to defend application because in the statement recorded by the appellant/defendant in the Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings, the appellant/defendant on 15.2.2013 in response to a court question stated that cheques in question bear the signatures of the appellant/defendant and that the appellant/defendant did not know how the cheques came to the possession of the complainant (i.e plaintiff in the subject suit), whereas a different stand was taken in the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant that the subject cheques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant/defendant against Sh. Brij Bhushan for alleged illegal retention of the cheques, and to this court query the counsel for the appellant/defendant had no answer. 8. Therefore it is seen that the cheques are the cheques of the appellant/defendant. The cheques do bear the signatures of the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant pleaded that the cheques were given in blank to Sh. Brij Bhushan but this defence has been rightly found by the trial court to be a complete moonshine and this Court has given an additional reason that if there was a compromise between Sh. Brij Bhushan and the appellant/defendant, then, there was no reason why at the time of compromise, the appellant/defendant would not have taken the cheques from Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
