TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal in Section 138 case due to lack of evidence</h1> <h3>STARKEY LABORATORIES INDIA PVT LTD Versus SANJAY GUJRAL</h3> The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition seeking leave to appeal against the rejection of a complaint under Section 138 of ... Seeking leave to appeal - Dishonor of Cheque - It was the respondent’s case that their accounts had been settled as he had returned certain products, which had been supplied to him and the credit for the same had not been accounted for - HELD THAT:- As per the books of the petitioner, a sum of ₹1,49,569/- was outstanding as on 11.10.2012. However, the petitioner waited for over two years to fill an amount of ₹2,00,000/- in the said blank cheque and deposited the same. According to the petitioner, the amount of ₹1,49,569/- had increased to ₹2,16,247/- as on the date of depositing the cheque, on account of interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum - The trial court had noted that there was no contract or arrangement whereby the respondent had agreed to pay any interest. The petitioner had been unable to establish that the cheque of ₹2,00,000/- had been issued by the respondent against any such liability. Even if it is accepted that the sum of ₹1,49,569/- was due from the respondent as on 11.10.2012, as deposed on behalf of the petitioner, the liability of ₹2,00,000/- was not established. Petition dismissed. Issues:Petition seeking leave to appeal against rejection of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the rejection of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complaint pertained to the dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent as security at the beginning of their business relationship. The petitioner, engaged in supplying hearing aids, claimed an outstanding amount against the respondent as of a certain date. The respondent contended that accounts were settled, including return of certain products not accounted for in credit. It was established that the petitioner possessed a blank cheque from the respondent.The petitioner, after waiting for over two years, filled the cheque with an increased amount and deposited it, claiming interest calculated at 24% per annum. However, the trial court noted the absence of any agreement for payment of interest by the respondent. The court found the petitioner failed to prove that the cheque amount was issued against the alleged liability. Even if the initial sum due was acknowledged, the liability for the cheque amount was not established. The trial court's decision was deemed plausible, leading to the dismissal of the petition seeking leave to appeal.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence establishing the respondent's liability for the cheque amount. The absence of a contractual arrangement for interest payment and failure to prove the specific liability led to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
