TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the cheque before the Indian Bank, Fairlands Branch, Salem-16 for encashment. The said Indian Bank had returned the cheque with an endorsement "payment stopped" by the drawer and the fact was intimated to the plaintiff. The Bank had returned the cheque with a memo dated 15.03.2003. The 'stop payment' instructions given by the defendant to his banker amounts to an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on 25.03.2003 informing the dishonour and liability for prosecution. The defendant sent a reply containing false particulars. It is false to say that the plaintiff asked for a loan from the defendant and the defendant has issued the cheque to accommodate the plaintiff. The cheque was issued only towards the repayment of the debt due by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem against the defendant and the learned Judge acquitted him. In this regard, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same is pending. The plaintiff issued a notice on 03.10.2005 to the defendant calling upon him to pay the entire sum of Rs. 17,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the plaintiff on 09.04.2003, calling him to prove the lending of Rs. 17 lakhs in a Civil Court. But the plaintiff did not choose to file a civil suit but filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.180 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem against the defendant and the same is dismissed. 5. The contention of the defendant was that there was no necessity to borrow money from the plaintiff. The defendant is an income tax payer and thereby, the income tax was paid for A.G. Neuro Hospital Private Limited by his individual capacity. The plaintiff has not produced any document to prove the lending of such huge amount as alleged in the plaint. Thus, the suit is to be rejected. 6. With reference to dispute, the Trial Court framed the issues as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for? To what relief? 7. Additional issue was framed, whether the suit cheque was issued by the defendant in discharge of debt? 8. With reference to the additional issue, whether the suit cheque was issued by the defendant in discharge of debt, the Trial Court examined the documents as well as evidences produced by the respective parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the notice has been allegedly sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, the same is to be proved beyond doubt. As far as the said notice dated 03.03.2003 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff is concerned, the same had not been established either by producing receipt of certificate of posting or any acknowledgement card. In the absence of any such proof, the Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the notice dated 03.03.2003 for the purpose of accepting the contention raised by the defendant in this regard. 11. It is the specific stand of the plaintiff that the defendant did not send Ex.B5 to the plaintiff and the defendant has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not produced any document to show that the said letter reached the hands of the plaintiff and in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the said letter cannot be taken as a valid evidence on the side of the defendant. The Trial Court categorically made a finding that the receipt/acknowledgement of the letter dated 03.03.2003 had not been established, neither any document to that effect has been filed. Thus, the statement in this regard and the letter have not been belie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Court. Considering all these facts, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff could able to establish that Ex.A1 cheque was issued in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant in the discharge of the debt incurred by him and accordingly, answered the issue. 14. With reference to issue No.1, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% till realisation on a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs with proportionate costs and accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also reiterated that the appellant/defendant, at no point of time, borrowed loan from the plaintiff. Long term relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is admitted. However, it is contended that there was no necessity for borrowing such huge amount of Rs. 17 lakhs from the plaintiff. It is further admitted that the defendant constructed a hospital and named the hospital in the name of the plaintiff "A.G.Neuro Hospital Private Limited" where A.G. stands for Ammachi Gounder. The long standing relati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loped the hospital in the name of the plaintiff as "A.G.Neuro Hospital Private Limited". Even thereafter, the defendant had purchased two more properties from the plaintiff and those properties were allotted in favour of the plaintiff in a family partition. Therefore, the very contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had no means to pay money by way of loan to the defendant is incorrect and false. After borrowing a loan, he had taken a different stand and issued cheque and subsequently, issued an instruction to the Bank for stop payment . After verification, the plaintiff came to understand that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the defendant. The very fact that the cheque was issued in favour of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendant is sufficient to consider the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could able to establish that the cheque was issued by the defendant in lieu of the repayment of the debt and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the transaction. The Trial Court also considered the document and evidence and arrived at a conclusion that such a defence is not acceptable, in view of the fact that the defendant could not able to establish h....