https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305244 In a summary suit based on cheque liability, the court held that the auction purchaser of the secured asset was not a necessary party because the primary liability remained with the cheque drawer, and the plaintiff was not bound to implead a person with only collateral or contractual connection to the debt. On leave to defend, the court applied the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the directors had a sufficient defence for unconditional leave, while the company's defence justified only conditional leave. The company was therefore permitted to defend the suit only on furnishing security. en-us Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2022 21:56:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305244 In a summary suit based on cheque liability, the court held that the auction purchaser of the secured asset was not a necessary party because the primary liability remained with the cheque drawer, and the plaintiff was not bound to implead a person with only collateral or contractual connection to the debt. On leave to defend, the court applied the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the directors had a sufficient defence for unconditional leave, while the company's defence justified only conditional leave. The company was therefore permitted to defend the suit only on furnishing security. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305244