TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Dismissed, Delay Condoned. Plaintiff Wins Rs. 7,91,776. Interest Awarded.</h1> The appeal was dismissed, and the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal was condoned. The suit was not barred by limitation as the statement of account ... Suit for recovery along with interest - outstanding dues - fuel/diesel purchased by the appellant/defendant no. 1 from the respondent/plaintiff who owns a retail petrol pump outlet of Bharat Petroleum in Delhi - Held that:- No fault can be found with the reasons, discussion and conclusion of the trial court holding that the appellant/defendant no.1 who was in transportation business and owned trucks used to purchase fuel from the respondent/plaintiff’s petrol pump and that he did not clear the outstanding dues as found in the invoices Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/9. The trial court also was justified in holding that the security cheque was properly presented to recover the outstanding amount and that a presumption was raised of the cheque being issued for consideration as per the Negotiable Instruments Act and which was not rebutted as per the evidence led by the appellant/defendant no.1. Trial court has rightly observed that witness of the respondent/plaintiff was not cross-examined for any alleged inflation of the bills and that on preponderance of probabilities as per the evidence on record the appellant/defendant no.1 had purchased fuel on credit basis. Once two possible views arise as per the record of the trial court, and the trial court has taken one possible and acceptable view, unless such a view is illegal or perverse this Court will not interfere with the said findings and conclusion of the trial court. We cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant no.1 because invoices Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/9 are in the nature of serialized details of invoices, however, these documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/9 are definitely the copies of the bill books maintained by the respondent/plaintiff and which is typical of petrol pump business. Slips of payment with respect to petrol purchase are issued but thereafter the bills are reflected in a bill book containing the details of the invoices issued and therefore do not find any illegality in the conclusion of the trial court holding that Ex. PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/9 are the unpaid invoices i.e serialized details of the unpaid invoices. The appellant/defendant no.1 is in transportation business and whose trucks took fuel from the respondent/plaintiff, which was not paid for and therefore the respondent/plaintiff had to deposit the security cheque towards recovery of the outstanding amount and which was dishonored on presentation and therefore the subject suit came to be filed. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Barred by limitation.3. Misutilization of the security cheque.4. Entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of the amount.5. Entitlement of the plaintiff for interest.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay:The court condoned the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal for the reasons stated in the application.2. Barred by Limitation:The trial court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. It was determined that the statement of account relied upon by the plaintiff was not an open, mutual, and current account; thus, the suit was not covered under Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. Misutilization of the Security Cheque:The trial court concluded that there was no misutilization of the security cheque. The cheque was rightly presented by the plaintiff to clear unpaid invoices (Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/9). The court found no proof of inflated invoices and noted the defendant's admission that fuel was sometimes taken on credit. The court also observed that the defendant did not dispute the invoices or raise any discrepancies regarding the bills. The security cheque was deemed valid for encashment of lawful liability, supported by the presumption under Section 139/118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the defendant failed to rebut.4. Entitlement for Recovery of the Amount:The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 7,91,776/- from the defendant. The court found that the defendant had purchased fuel on credit and did not clear the outstanding dues. The invoices (Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/9) were accepted as valid, and the court rejected the argument that these were mere entries in the bill book. The court also dismissed the defendant's claim that the cheque was given only as security and not for encashment.5. Entitlement for Interest:The trial court awarded interest on the decreed amount, although the specific rate of interest was not detailed in the provided text.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-, which the appellant/defendant was directed to deposit with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within four weeks. The court found no fault with the trial court’s reasoning and conclusions, which were based on the evidence and the law. The trial court's findings were upheld, including the proper presentation of the security cheque and the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the outstanding amount with interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
