TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kh to the appellant, for the purpose of constructing a house for himself in his native village in Tamil Nadu, in cash in a piecemeal manner on various dates in the period between December, 2010 to December, 2012. It was claimed that, from the withdrawals made out of the bank accounts of his family members and him, the respondent lent the entire sum to the appellant in the following manner:- "(a) Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.12.2010 by way of cash. (b) Rs. 2,00,000/- on 10.03.2011 out of which Rs. 1,40,000/- as withdrawn and paid to the defendant from savings bank account of plaintiff's mother held in SBI, Dakshinpuri Branch, New Delhi and Rs. 60,000/- in cash. (c) Rs. 2,00,000/- on 19.11.2011, out of which Rs. 1,75,000/- was withdrawn from the plaintiff's bank account no. 30701035365 with SBI, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-62, and Rs. 25,000/- in cash. (d) Rs. 1,00,000/- on 10.12.2011 from plaintiff's mother bank account at SBI, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi-62. (e) Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.05.2012 out of which Rs. 80,000/- was withdrawn from his own bank account and Rs. 2,20,000 in cash. (f) Rs. 3,00,000/- on 02.12.2012 out of which Rs. 2,40,000/- was withdrawn from the plaintiff's bank account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statement in the respondent's complaint case recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, came to the conclusion that the defence raised by the appellant was a sham. The learned Trial Court held that in addition to the appellant raising contradictory defences in different proceedings and documents which, in itself, was suggestive of falsehood in his defence, he had even failed to aver as to why he had handed over the cheque in question to the respondent. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting the appellant's application seeking leave to defend, after holding that his defence was frivolous and groundless and that he had neither denied the issuance of the cheque nor denied his signatures thereon. Resultantly, the learned Trial Court decreed the respondent's suit for a sum of Rs. 12 lakh with pendente interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 7. Impugning the aforesaid judgment, Mr. C. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in declining to grant leave to defend to the appellant even though the pleas raised by the appellant cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rts the impugned order and submits that there is absolutely no infirmity with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court declining to grant leave to defend to the appellant. He submits that the learned Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant was trying to raise wholly false and contradictory pleas evident from a comparison of his police complaint dated 29.07.2003 and his leave application. Though the appellant, in his leave application, has taken a stand that he had never taken any loan from the respondent; in his police complaint, he has made a categorical statement that he had borrowed only a total sum of Rs. 3 lakh from the respondent. In furtherance of this contention, the learned counsel also draws my attention to the appellant's reply dated 26.08.2013 to the respondent's legal notice stating therein that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the respondent's father. Mr.Rao further submits that the reliance by the appellant on the RBI notification or his plea regarding his participation as a member of a chit fund committee being run by the respondent's father are merely an afterthought which, by the virtue of not being raised in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of receipt which was executed by the defendant. That plaintiff has issued the wrong statement of account of transaction which has not taken place between the plaintiff and defendant and falsity of the plaintiff are apparent on the face of records and it is pertinent to mention here that there is no express or implied agreement between the plaintiff and defendant and without any necessity the alleged the loan was advanced and hence the claim of the plaintiff is without basis. xxx It is pertinent to mention here that no sensible person can advance the loan as mentioned above to a person who has defaulted many times and has not returned the loan amount and no sensible reason has been shown there is no agreement, no bank transaction and no cash receipt executed by the defendant, whole transactions are concocted, fabricated and no money has exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant as alleged. It is also pertinent to mention here that none of the above transactions were reflected in the income return of the plaintiff." 13. In these circumstances, when I consider the defence raised by the appellant viz. the respondent's claim that the entire purported loan amount was given b....