https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300239 In a summary suit based on dishonoured cheques, leave to defend was refused because the defendants' plea that the cheques were blank security instruments was treated as an afterthought, contradicted by written admissions of liability and correspondence showing issuance toward principal and interest. The court also held that cross-claims on excise, MODVAT and conversion charges raised no triable issue, as no timely claim had been made and those claims were time-barred. Limitation for the cheque-based suit ran from the date of dishonour, so the filing was within time. The guarantors' personal undertakings were enforced as co-extensive and joint and several with the principal debtor. en-us Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jan 2022 18:16:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300239 In a summary suit based on dishonoured cheques, leave to defend was refused because the defendants' plea that the cheques were blank security instruments was treated as an afterthought, contradicted by written admissions of liability and correspondence showing issuance toward principal and interest. The court also held that cross-claims on excise, MODVAT and conversion charges raised no triable issue, as no timely claim had been made and those claims were time-barred. Limitation for the cheque-based suit ran from the date of dishonour, so the filing was within time. The guarantors' personal undertakings were enforced as co-extensive and joint and several with the principal debtor. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300239