TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been duly proved. That apart, the denial of the signatures by the appellant-defendant on the cheque also cannot be accepted as the respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove on the basis of the evidence and in fact, admission that the cheque book and cheque leaf were of the account of the appellant-defendant. Since the appellant-defendant had denied his signatures, the onus was on him to prove that the cheque did not bear his signature but unfortunately, he did not produce any expert evidence in support of this assertion of his. Further, the cheque has been returned by the bank not on the ground that the signature on the cheque is not of the appellant-defendant but because of insufficient funds. Signing and issuing cheque in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The deficient Court fee is permitted to be made good. RSA-2927-2015 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby, the suit of the respondent- plaintiff for recovery of ₹ 8,00,000/- has been decreed and the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant, stands dismissed. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant- defendant that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation as according to the admitted facts, the amount was handed over to the appellant-defendant in January, 2001 by the respondent- plaintiff on the assertion that he was a Travel Agent and had promised to send the plaintiff's son abroad which he failed and thereafter, to discharge his debt, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has been filed, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. The law in this regard has rightly been appreciated by the Courts below and applied. Reliance in this regard placed on the conclusions and observations recorded in para 15 of the judgment of Bombay High Court in Dinesh B. Chokshi Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhatt another 2013 (2) Civil Court Cases 017 (Bombay), as has been reproduced, cannot be faulted with. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 745 to assert that the suit would be barred by limitation and Section 25 (3) of the Indian Contract Act, would not be attracted, is misplaced. This judgment rather goes against him as is apparent from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the signature on the cheque is not of the appellant-defendant but because of insufficient funds. Signing and issuing cheque in favour of the respondent-plaintiff would amount to owing and acknowledging the liability by the appellant-defendant. All these go to prove beyond doubt that the appellant-defendant had acknowledged and accepted his debt. Both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings after proper appreciation of evidence which do not call for interference as there is no perversity or illegality in the same. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal which requires consideration of this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
