Court upholds liability under Negotiable Instruments Act, dismisses petition challenging DRAT's order

The court dismissed the petition challenging the DRAT's order, upholding the liability of the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act for non-payment of bills of exchange. The court found no illegality or infirmity in the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing its limited supervisory role under Article 226 and 227. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded, affirming the credibility of the Notary Public's testimony and the adequacy of the respondents' pleadings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order of the DRAT dated 24.08.2015.
2. Presentation and acceptance of bills of exchange.
3. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of bills.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227.
5. Credibility of the Notary Public's testimony.
6. Adequacy of pleadings in the original appeal.
7. Privity of contract and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the order of the DRAT dated 24.08.2015:
The petitioner challenged the DRAT's order on grounds of miscarriage of justice and violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner argued that there was insufficient material to prove the acceptance of the bills of exchange and the subsequent endorsements. The petitioner also claimed that the bills were never presented for payment to OBC or to the petitioner, and that the bills were discharged upon settlement with respondent No.3.

2. Presentation and acceptance of bills of exchange:
The contesting respondents presented four bills of exchange to OBC, which were returned unpaid. The bills were protested by S.K. Tyagi, Notary Public, but the petitioner did not make any payment. The respondents sought directions for the petitioner to pay Rs. 53,17,505 with interest at 18% per annum. The DRT-II directed the petitioner to make the payment, and the DRAT dismissed the appeal, leading to the present petition.

3. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of bills:
The petitioner alleged that the bills of exchange were forged and fabricated by the respondent bank, and that the bank's name was inserted without authorization. The petitioner argued that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the presentation and rejection of the bills by OBC, and that the protest by the Notary Public did not comply with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227:
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 is limited and supervisory, not appellate. The court cannot re-appreciate evidence adduced before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has held that the High Court should not reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities unless there is no evidence to support the findings or the decision is unreasonable.

5. Credibility of the Notary Public's testimony:
The testimony of S.K. Tyagi, Notary Public, was given credence by the DRT-II and DRAT as he was considered an independent witness. The petitioner challenged this reliance, but the DRAT found that the Notary Public's testimony was supported by documentary evidence and other circumstances. The court concurred with the DRAT's findings, emphasizing the Notary Public's role under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

6. Adequacy of pleadings in the original appeal:
The petitioner contended that the pleadings in the OA were vague and lacked material particulars. The DRAT noted that all necessary facts were pleaded by the respondents, including the presentation and protest of the bills of exchange. The court found no force in the petitioner's argument regarding the vagueness of the pleadings.

7. Privity of contract and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner argued that there was no privity of contract with respondent No.1/Bank and that the bills of exchange were not enforceable. The DRAT held that the petitioner, as the acceptor and drawee of the bills, was liable under Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found no infirmity in the DRAT's findings and rejected the petitioner's argument.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the DRAT's judgment. The appeal was dismissed along with the pending application, with no order as to costs. The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the DRT-II and DRAT, emphasizing the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227.

---