TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the defendant was entitled to leave to defend in a summary suit when the cheque and receipt bore his signatures, the defence was that the cheque had been issued only as security for another person's loan, and the defendant alleged misuse of the cheque.
Analysis: The governing test for leave to defend is whether the defendant discloses a substantial defence or at least triable issues; where the defence is frivolous, vexatious, or does not raise a genuine triable issue, leave may be refused. The signed cheque and the signed receipt acknowledging receipt of the loan supported the plaintiff's case. The defendant did not deny receipt of the legal notice, and no contemporaneous complaint or legal notice was issued alleging fraud or misuse. The pendency of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not aid the defendant, and the presumption under section 118 of that Act supported the cheque having been issued for consideration.
Conclusion: The defendant was not entitled to leave to defend, and the refusal of leave was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the defence disclosed no credible triable issue and the summary decree in favour of the plaintiff stood affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit, leave to defend must be refused where the defence is unsupported by credible material and does not raise a genuine triable issue, particularly when the defendant's own signed documents and the statutory presumption of consideration support the plaintiff's claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
