Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Naresh Kumar Jain Versus Lallan Shah

2017 (12) TMI 288 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Suit for recovery along with interest - dishonour of cheques - Held that:- Trial court in our 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. 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. Brij Bhushan way back in January, 2011. The leave defend application .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No.1002/2017 and C.M. Nos.43488/2017 (stay) & 43490/2017 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC) 3. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial Court dated 5.12.2016 by which the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 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 Inst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efendant was pressurized to give some pre-signed blank cheques to the said Sh. Brij Bhushan. However the matter was pleaded to have been settled between the appellant/defendant and Sh. Brij Bhushan whereby Sh. Brij Bhushan agreed and admitted that there is no due against the appellant/defendant. This agreement was supported by the letters accordingly written by Sh. Brij Bhushan in his hands bearing his own signatures. The subject cheques were given to Sh. Brij Bhushan as security which were to b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/defendant had, however, the same would have no bearing to the other reasoning and conclusions given 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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondent/plaintiff. Trial court in my opinion also rightly held that the appellant/defendant was served in the suit on 26.7.2013 but till the disposal of the leave to defend application on 5.12.2016 it is no where the case of the appellant/defendant that he has initiated any action against Sh. Brij Bhushan for failing to return the cheques or misusing the cheques by giving the same to the respondent/plaintiff. Trial court has further rightly held that it is difficult to believe that the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version