9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding the one at Kurti Ponda, Goa. The Society is engaged in financial business by accepting deposits and advancing loans to its members. The Complainant was represented by its Field Assistant, duly authorised to file such complaint. It further claimed that Respondent No. 1/Accused being one of its members obtained loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) with agreement to repay it in instalments together with interest as per the terms and conditions imposed in the loan agreement and loan account number MVH/351. The Respondent No. 1/Accused committed defaults in paying the instalments together with interest and over due amount remained unpaid. The Respondent/ Accused then issued a cheque bearing No. 014423 dated 30.10.2012 in favour of the Complainant amounting to Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand only) towards part payment of the outstanding loan amount. Complainant presented such cheque for realization, however it was returned unpaid on 02.11.2012. Complainant then issued a legal notice dated 20.11.2012 calling upon the Respondent No. 1/Accused to pay the amount mentioned in the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice. Though the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent No. 1 would submit that the cross-examination of the Authorised Officer clearly destroyed the case of the Complainant and he failed to justify the amount which was outstanding as on date of issuance of cheque. He would therefore submit that though the documents were placed on record, oral evidence is contrary to such documents and thus no interference is necessary. 10. Rival contentions fall for determination as under:- (i) Whether Respondent No. 1 succeeded in rebutting presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Act? 11. Answer is in the negative for the following reasons:- 12. Parties are hereinafter referred to as Complainant and Accused for the sake of convenience. 13. The Complainant is a society dealing with business of finance thereby accepting deposits and giving loans to its members. The Complainant is a registered society and having license to carry out such business which has not been disputed at all. In the complaint itself, statement is made that the Accused is a member of the Society who obtained a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) which was returnable with instalments together with interests. 14. In order to substantiate such conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest and other charges during further cross-examination. PW-1 then categorically stated that Accused is liable to pay cheque amount as on 30.10.2012 based on ledger Account produced at exhibit C-20 colly. 17. The disputed cheque is produced which show the signature of the Accused together with date and amount which has not been disputed at all. The cheque return memo shows that the cheque was returned for funds insufficient. The demand notice was issued to the Accused dated 20.11.2012 wherein all the details of the cheque, loan and the outstanding amount is mentioned. The Accused was asked to pay the amount mentioned in the Cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice. The said notice was addressed to the Accused and forwarded by a registered post with acknowledgement due. The Postal Department handed over such notice to the Accused and the acknowledgment is produced at exhibit C-17 colly. 18. There is no dispute raised by the Accused that such notice was never received by him. Besides, the notice is addressed to the registered address of the Accused. The mandate of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to send notice to the Accused on his registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signed blank cheques involuntarily presented to some payee towards some payment and the payee by filling up the amount and other particulars would not itself invalidate the cheque and the onus would still be on the Accused to prove by adducing evidence that the cheque was not issued towards liability. 23. It is now a well-settled proposition of law that once the signature on the cheque is admitted by the Accused, the Court is duty bound to raise presumption in favour of the Complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is then for the Accused to rebut such presumption though by preponderance of probabilities there by showing it through evidence of the Complainant or by leading evidence. It is also well settled that such presumption cannot be rebutted only on the basis of suggestion or showing some discrepancies in the testimonies of the complainant. 24. In the present matter the documentary evidence placed on record clearly proves that the Accused obtained loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) with an undertaking to repay it in 60 instalments together with an interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The demand promissory note was also executed by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
