TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- from the respondent's wife on 02.04.2004 on execution of registered mortgage deed of their properties. Again, for the urgent need of the petitioner herein, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-on 02.05.2007 and at the time of borrowal of the loan, the petitioner issued post dated cheque bearing No.0544530 dated 16.05.2007 drawn on State Bank of India, Trichirappalli for the said sum. When the cheque was presented for collection on 21.05.2007 through the State Bank of India, Kodaikanal, it was dishonoured and returned on 06.06.2007 for the reason "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the respondent issued statutory notice dated 13.06.2007 and the same was duly received by the petitioner on 16.06.2007. The petitioner also replied by the reply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-, in which Rs. 5,00,000/- has been deducted for future interest and remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- only lend to the petitioner and his mother. On the said date, the petitioner and his mother registered the mortgage deed in favour of the respondent and also issued signed blank cheques and pro-notes in favour of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner and his mother called upon the respondent not to present the above mentioned cheques for collection as they were not issued in discharging of any liability. Further, on 22.11.2005 itself, the petitioner and his mother issued letter to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Pudukottai and informed that the above cheques were not issued in discharging of any liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent and his wife. When it being so, without repaying the same, again on 02.05.2007, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- on issuance of post dated cheque for the said sum dated 16.05.2007. It is seen from the notice dated 22.11.2005 issued by the petitioner and his mother to the respondent and his wife, calling upon them not to present the cheques obtained at the time of borrowing the loan viz., in the year 2003 and 2004 for collection as they were not issued in discharging of any liability. The very relevant portion of the said notice is as follows: "2.My clients during the relevant period were hardly pressed for money for the discharge of his father's liabilities and for his business. Hence my clients were in a fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han Rs. 12 lakhs to you by way of cash and Demand Draft. The balance alone is repayable. No interest at more than 9% p.a. Can be claimed. 5.On the date of mortgate you did not pay Rs. 40 lakhs to my clients and you are not having the capacity to advance such a huge amount. Under law such amounts have to be paid only through cheque and not in cash. 6.While things are like that on 20.11.2005, your husband came with number of rowdy elements to the house of my clients at Trichy and threatened them to pay interest at the 'Metre rate' of interest and told them of the interest is not paid he will trespass into the house of my clients at Kodaikanal and cause damage to the things therein and also assault my clients causing permanent disa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same, the respondent and his wife also replied through reply notice dated 02.12.2005. Be that as it may, it is impossible to lend loan for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs on 02.05.2007 to the petitioner. It is also unbelievable one. Again, it can be construed that the alleged cheque was already obtained for the purpose of security, while borrowing the loan in the year 2003 and 2004. That apart in the said notice dated 22.11.2005, the petitioner and his mother specifically averred the cheque particulars and pronotes obtained by the respondent herein. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. 9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon the judgment reported in 2015(2) CTC 446 - HMT Watches Ltd. V....