TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya Fashion used to purchase the fabrics from the plaintiff-Company against the receipt thereof and during the course of such transaction defendants purchased cloth worth several lakhs of rupees from the plaintiff-Company and made certain payments against the same. As on 20th January, 1999 a sum of ₹ 560059/- became due and against this payment defendant issued number of cheques. The goods in question against which this sum became due are covered by challans dated 12th June, 1997, 22nd August, 1997, 5th September, 1997, 17th September, 1997, 1st November, 1997, 3rd November,1997, 12th November, 1997, 29th November, 1997, 18th June, 1998 20th november, 1998, 4th December, 1998, 20th January, 1999 and 30th January, 1999. These goods were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled on the basis of these cheques under order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance was placed on Suri and Suri Private Limited versus Ram Swarup Arora and Company reported in Vol.24 (83) DLT (SN) 3 in support of this contention. 2. Suit for claiming interest was also not maintainable under the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure more particularly when there was no clause for payment of interest in the agreement/contract between the parties nor was it mentioned in the bills. 3. On merits it was submitted that the cheques in question were without consideration. The defendant had given post-dated 11 cheques but no goods were supplied against these cheques. This would be clear from the fact that cheques relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t funds". Since all the cheques were drawn on Indian Bank, Janakpuri Branch, New Delhi not once or twice but 12 times there was no logic or purpose in presenting the balance cheques. It is also contended that the interest is claimed in the plaint by way of consequential relief which arises because of non-payment of due amount against the defendant. The rate of interest is claimed on the basis of oral mutual agreement between the parties and prevalent market rate. Plaintiff has further denied that no goods were received by the defendant or there were any defective goods through Bill nos. 14, 334 and 339 dated 12th June, 1997, 20th January, 1999 and 30th January, 1999 as alleged in the application for leave to defend. The plaintiff has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the defendant has no defense or the defense set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend. (e) If the defendant has no defense or the defense is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to sign judgment, the Court may protect the plaintiff by only allowing the defense to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into Court or otherwise secured and give leave to the defendant on such condition, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defense. 8. Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e given in para 5 of the plaint. If the Cheques in question were against the supplies made vide these challan, how the plaintiff was receiving payments through cheques as well as in cash also particularly after 5th June, 1998 the details whereof are given in para 2 of the plaint. It is not explained by the plaintiff as to on what account these payments were received if they were in addition to the payments received by means of these cheques against the challan mentioned in para 5 of the plaint. Thus the defendant has raided good defense and friable issue indicating that he has fair and bonafide defense. 9. Moreover, this Court in the case of Suri and Suri Private Limited (supra) has held that when the Suit is filed on the basis of several ....