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>Appeal application denied for lack of evidence on loan debt & cheque issuance.</h1> <h3>Vijaya Kundanlal Sharma Versus Satyawan Bhikaji Jadhav and Ors.</h3> Vijaya Kundanlal Sharma Versus Satyawan Bhikaji Jadhav and Ors. - TMI Issues involved: Application seeking leave to appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 14, Pune in S.C.C. No. 17758/2009 dated 30/09/2010.Comprehensive Details:1. Alleged Loan Transaction:The complainant alleged that the accused had taken a hand loan of Rs. 5,80,000/- and issued 7 cheques which were dishonored with the remark 'Account closed.' The complainant filed a complaint after the accused failed to pay despite a statutory notice. During the trial, the accused claimed that he had borrowed Rs. 50,000/- for his partnership firm and had refunded the amount, but the complainant presented the cheques for encashment.2. Defense of Accused:The accused contended that he was not liable to pay any legally enforceable debt to the complainant. A witness testified that the accused had refunded the borrowed amount and the complainant was not returning the cheques. The accused argued that the complainant had no evidence to prove the alleged loan transaction.3. Evaluation of Evidence:The Magistrate observed that the complainant did not provide documentary proof of selling a vehicle to give the loan amount. The complainant's bank account did not show any withdrawal of Rs. 5 lacs in February 2008. The complainant admitted that besides the disputed cheque, there was no other evidence of advancing the loan amount.4. Legal Analysis:Referring to a previous case, the Court held that unaccounted cash amount cannot be considered a legally recoverable debt under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate's reasons for not finding the cheques as issued towards a legally enforceable debt were deemed justifiable. The complainant failed to establish the loan transaction and the findings did not warrant interference.Conclusion:The application seeking leave to appeal was rejected based on the lack of proof of a legally enforceable debt in the alleged loan transaction.
TaxTMI 