TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/-, the execution of pronote and the issuance of cheques are concerned, the defendant, during his cross examination, categorically admitted that the plaintiff entrusted a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- for investment and towards the repayment of the said amount, the defendant issued four post dated cheques to the plaintiff, in which, three cheques were marked as Ex. A2, Ex. A3 and Ex. A4. He also categorically admitted the signature found in the pronote, which was marked as Ex. A1. Therefore, after entrustment of ₹ 10,00,000/-, on demand, the defendant executed the pronote on 28.03.2007 and on the same day, he also issued four cheques towards the repayment of ₹ 10,00,000/-. According to Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Lakhs only) to the defendant for the purpose of investment with secured returns. The defendant utilized the said amount for his own business purposes. Therefore, the defendant executed a pronote for the said sum in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay on demand together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and on the same day the defendant also issued four post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff. Each cheque was for the sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and in respect of one dishonoured cheque, he lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending the complaint, the said amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) was settled by the defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as P.W. 1 and 10 documents were marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A10. On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and 4 documents were marked as Ex. B1 to Ex. B4. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the Court below decreed the suit and directed the defendant to pay a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards the principal with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred this Appeal Suit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff did not even whisper on which date, the alleged amount was entrusted with the defendant and also on which date, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the cheque, which was returned dishonoured. Therefore, the last date of payment cannot be counted for limitation as per proviso of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, there is no acknowledgment and also there is no endorsement in respect of the last payments only towards the alleged pronote due. The plaintiff failed to present the cheques dated 28.04.2008 and 28.04.2009 and therefore the suit is clearly barred by limitation. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the defendant categorically admitted during his cross examination that a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was entrusted with him by the plaintiff. When the defendant failed to invest the same in the business, he executed the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r post dated cheques i.e., (i) Cheque dated 28.04.2008 bearing No. 704703 (not presented and reason not revealed by the Plaintiff) Stale Cheque, (ii) Cheque dated 28.04.2009 bearing No. 704704 (not presented and reason not mentioned by Plaintiff) Stale Cheque, (iii) Cheque dated 18.09.2010 bearing No. 704705 (presented and encashed by the Plaintiff and not mentioned about the date of encashment) and (iv) Cheque dated 28.04.2011 bearing No. 704706 (Dishonoured Cheque) each of ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only). The pronote was marked as Ex. A1. The cheque dated 18.09.2010 was presented and the same was honoured by the defendant. 12. Insofar as the cheque dated 28.04.2011, which was presented and dishonoured for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r entrustment of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only), on demand, the defendant executed the pronote on 28.03.2007 and on the same day, he also issued four cheques towards the repayment of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). 16. According to Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, when the defendant made payment on account of the cheque before the expiration of prescribed period, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. Therefore, it is clear that when the defendant issued four post dated cheques and thereby acknowledged the amount due to the plaintiff. The Limitation starts from the date of instrument irrespective of the fact that the defendant issued four post dated cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
