https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365266 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365266 Refund of two Fixed deposits made with Interest - total denial of the receipt of Rs. 30 lakhs in cash from the respondent by Bank. Whether the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation? - Held that:- This Court does not want to go into this question for the first time at the stage of appeal. It is true that the question of limitation can be gone into by a Court, even without the same being raised as an issue, where on a bare reading of the plaint, this Court finds that the claim is barred by limitation. In this case limitation was not taken as a defense in the written statement and was not made as an issue before the learned Single Judge. What is the effect of the Statement of Accounts filed by the appellant Bank under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891? - Held that:- In the instant case, the presumption that can be drawn by this Court in relation to the facts of this case is that the respondent has tried to take advantage of the availability of two original fixed deposit receipts for Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs that was not collected from him by mistake by the Officers of the appellant Bank at the time of consolidating the fixed deposit. The conduct of the appellant in waiting for 5 years and thereafter trying to take advantage of these original fixed deposit receipts, can be clearly seen in the facts and circumstances of this case. Whether the appellant Bank has discharged the onus by disproving the claim made by the respondent and whether the respondent on the onus being shifted has established the claim? - Held that:- Even if the fixed deposit receipt marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2 is taken to be a negotiable instrument and presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is to be drawn against the appellant Bank, the appellant Bank is entitled to rebut the presumption by means of preponderance of probabilities and for the said purpose, evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and the materials on record and also the circumstances upon which the defendant relies up can be taken into consideration for the purpose of rebutting the presumption. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with in this appeal? - Held that:- The learned Single Judge has drawn an adverse inference against the appellant Bank for not examining Mr.Sivasubramanian Ex.D-3 speaks for itself and there is no requirement for Mr.Sivasubramanian to come and explain about the entries made in the books of accounts and DW-1 himself was competent to explain the same. In fact, this Court is drawing an adverse inference against the respondent for not producing the books of accounts or the income tax returns in order to prove that he paid Rs. 30 lakhs by way of cash towards the fixed deposit - We are not in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge while allowing the suit filed by the respondent - the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530