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 Confirms Cheque Payment Discharge, Grants Decree with Interest and Costs</h1> <h3>Dr. P. Sundara Rajan Versus P.N. Ammachi Gounder, P.N.A. Govindan, A. Tamilarasan, A. Raja Rajan, A. Dhanam (Died), A. Anbukkarasi, A. Ezhilmani, A. Kalaiarasi, A. Malliga, A. Senthil kumar</h3> Dr. P. Sundara Rajan Versus P.N. Ammachi Gounder, P.N.A. Govindan, A. Tamilarasan, A. Raja Rajan, A. Dhanam (Died), A. Anbukkarasi, A. Ezhilmani, A. ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit cheque was issued by the defendant in discharge of debtRs.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed forRs.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest and costsRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit cheque was issued by the defendant in discharge of debtRs.The plaintiff contended that the defendant borrowed Rs. 17,00,000 and issued a cheque, which was dishonored due to 'payment stopped' instructions. The defendant argued that the cheque was issued as a loan to the plaintiff, who failed to provide a promissory note and title deeds as security. The Trial Court examined the documents and evidence, concluding that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt despite the defendant's claims. The defendant's inability to prove the letter dated 03.03.2003 and the lack of sufficient funds in his account further weakened his defense. The Trial Court determined that the plaintiff could take advantage of the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed forRs.The Trial Court framed issues to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to the decree. The plaintiff established that the cheque was issued for repayment of debt, and the defendant's defense was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court found the plaintiff's claims credible, noting the defendant's failure to prove his version of events. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree, as the evidence supported the claim that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest and costsRs.The Trial Court awarded the plaintiff interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the same rate till realization on the sum of Rs. 17,00,000, along with proportionate costs. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to these amounts due to the defendant's failure to repay the debt.Conclusion:The High Court confirmed the Trial Court's judgment and decree, finding no perversity or infirmity in the findings. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted the relief of recovery of money with interest and costs. The court emphasized the importance of sufficient evidence to support claims and defenses in legal disputes.
TaxTMI 