https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300250 In a summary suit based on a cheque, limitation was treated as running from dishonour of the cheque, because the right to sue arose when the cheque was presented and returned unpaid, not from the original commercial transaction. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC was upheld since goods were supplied from Delhi and the cheque was presented there, so part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. On leave to defend, the Court accepted that specific assertions of security cheque status and subsequent payments raised a triable defence, but granted only conditional leave, requiring deposit as security for part of the claim. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jan 2022 08:47:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300250 In a summary suit based on a cheque, limitation was treated as running from dishonour of the cheque, because the right to sue arose when the cheque was presented and returned unpaid, not from the original commercial transaction. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC was upheld since goods were supplied from Delhi and the cheque was presented there, so part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. On leave to defend, the Court accepted that specific assertions of security cheque status and subsequent payments raised a triable defence, but granted only conditional leave, requiring deposit as security for part of the claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300250