Delhi District Court
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs Vijay Kumar @ Vijay on 13 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010146882024
CS (COMM.) No. 1037/2024
CNR No. DLCT010146882024
In the matters of :-
Neeraj Nath Sharma
s/o Late Sh. Kedar Nath
r/o 83-A, DDA Flat,
Mata Sundri Road,
New Delhi-110002 ......Plaintiff
Versus
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay
s/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh
H.No. B 512, Raghubir Nagar
New Delhi-110026
Office Address:-
Vijay Kumar
Nursing Orderly
Emp No.1907, Emp. ID 117829 (old) , 84147093
Through its Medical Director
Lok Nayak Hospital
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg
New Delhi-110002
Also at :-
Vijay Kumar @ Vijay
S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh
H.No. 283/96, Type-II
Staff Qtr.
Neeraj Nath Sharma
vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 1 of 42 )
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH KUMAR
KUMAR GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:00
+0530
First Floor, Block No.04
MAMC Residential Complex
Mirdard Road, New Delhi 110002 ......Defendant
Date of institution : 19.09.2024
Date of Argument : 02.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 13.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery of Rs 14,00,000/- (Rs Fourteen Lakh Only) filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a license holder and used to carry on the business of money lending within the area of NCT of Delhi; the defendant is working as a nursing orderly in Lok Nayak Hospital; the plaintiff and the defendant are acquainted with each other for many years.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 01.10.2019, the defendant alongwith his wife Geeta approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs 2,00,000/- on interest basis as the defendant was in dire need of money; the plaintiff extended the loan of Rs Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 2 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:01
+0530
2,00,000/- to the defendant; the defendant agreed to repay the above loan within a period of six months alongwith interest @ 2% p.m.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in discharge of his aforesaid legal liability, the defendant executed the loan agreement, declaration certificate, pronote receipts dated 01.10.2019 in favour of the plaintiff and the wife of the defendant stood as guarantor.
5. Apart from the aforesaid loan, the defendant again approached the plaintiff from time to time for availing further loans and, in this regard, executed pronote receipts and other related documents in favour of the plaintiff. During the period from 01.10.2019 to 30.12.2023, the defendant obtained a total loan amount of Rs. 13,89,000/- from the plaintiff on interest @ 2% per month. Out of the said amount, the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards interest to the plaintiff.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that a principal amount of Rs. 13,89,000/-, along with interest amounting to Rs. 55,660/- accrued till 06.02.2024, remains due and outstanding against the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 3 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:56
+0530
defendant.
7. It is further stated that in discharge of his legal liability, on 6.2.2024, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no.000015 dated 06.02.2024 in the sum of Rs 14,00,000/- to the plaintiff; on presentation, the said cheque was received back as dishonored vide returning memo dated 20.02.2024 with the remarks " Payment stopped by drawer"; a legal notice dated 26.02.2024, was sent to the defendant but despite the service the outstanding payment was not made by the defendant. Hence, the present suit was filed.
8. Since, the subject matter of the suit is a commercial dispute, therefore, the plaintiff is said to have approached Central DLSA in terms of Section 12 (A) of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 and the Central DLSA has released a Non-Starter Report dated 28.8.2024 in pre-institution mediation process.
9. Here it is pertinent to mention that originally the present suit had been filed under Order XXXVII CPC but on 04.10.2024, on the request being made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the present suit was treated as ordinary recovery suit and the summons were directed to be issued to the defendant.
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 4 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:59
+0530
Filing of Written Statement:
10. On being served the summons of the suit, the defendant contested the present suit and filed the written statement raising certain objections to the effect that the plaintiff was not having any money lending license at the time of filing the present suit, hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed; the plaintiff paid only Rs 1,00,000/- to the defendant and got the signatures of the defendant and his wife on various printed documents and on blank cheque; the defendant never issued the cheque in question and the plaintiff has misused the same.
11. A little ahead in the written statement, it is stated that only an amount of Rs 5,11,000/- was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff; no cash payment was made by the plaintiff; the plaintiff had taken the ATM card of the defendant and used to withdraw money as and when salary of the defendant was credited in the bank account of the defendant; the plaintiff had also taken some cash payment as well from the defendant; all other allegations made by the plaintiff have been denied and it is prayed that the present suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed.
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 5 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:58
+0530
12. The plaintiff filed the replication denying the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
13. The record would indicate that both the parties have filed the statement of admission and denial of the documents.
Settlement of issues and Fixing the Schedule for Second Case Management Hearing.
14. Vide order dated 02.06.2025, the application of the plaintiff moved under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was dismissed and from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by this Court and the schedule of the Second Case Management Hearing was fixed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of Rs 14,00,000/-, from the defendant, as prayed for ? (OPP)
2. In case, the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? (OPP)
3. Relief.
Evidence led by the parties:
15. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined five witnesses i.e himself as PW1, Alok Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 6 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:57
+0530
Kumar, from the office of SDM Darya Ganj as PW2, B.S Rawat from the Bank of India as PW3, Amit Kumar from Kotak Mahindra Bank as PW4 and Anant Nag from Canara Bank as PW5
16. PW1 Neeraj Nath Sharma has filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A. PW1 has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents Sl.No Document Exhibit
1. Copy of money lending Ex.PW1/1 license
2. Copy of application dated Ex.PW1/2 10.02.2009 seeking renewal of license
3. Copy of application dated Ex.PW1/3 24.08.2009 / RTI application
4. Supply information dated Ex.PW1/4 18.11.2009
5. Copy of application dated Ex.PW1/5 09.11.2009
6. Loan agreement Ex.PW1/6.
7. Declaration Ex.PW1/7.
8. Another declaration/ surety Ex.PW1/8.
affidavit
9. Pro-note receipt dated Ex.PW1/9.
01.10.2019
10. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/10.
01.10.2019
11. Copy of cheque dated Mark PW1/11.
01.10.2019
12. Pro-note receipt dated Ex.PW1/12.
10.02.2020
13. Promissory note dated ExPW1/13 26.08.2020
14. Copy of screenshot of payment Mark PW1/14.
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 7 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:57
+0530
made on 27.08.2020
15. Pro-note receipt dated Ex.PW1/15.
18.09.2020
16. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/16.
21.09.2020
17. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/17.
22.09.2020
18. Pro-note receipt dated Ex.PW1/18.
29.09.2020
19. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/19.
17.12.2020
20. Pro-note receipt dated Ex.PW1/20.
12.02.2021
21. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/21.
11.03.2021
22. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/22.
28.10.2021
23. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/23.
14.03.2022
24. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/24.
06.06.2022
25. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/25.
21.06.2022
26. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/26.
11.10.2022
27. Promissory note dated Ex.PW1/27.
14.10.2022
28. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/28.
29.10.2022
29. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/29.
26.12.2022
30. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/30.
05.01.2023
31. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/31.
14.07.2023
32. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/32.
24.07.2023
33. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/33.
19.08.2023
34. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/34.
27.09.2023
35. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/35.
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 8 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:58
+0530
27.10.2023
36. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/36 18.11.2023
37. Copy of screen shot dated Mark 25.11.2023 Ex.PW1/37
38. Copy of screen shot dated Mark PW1/38.
01.12.2023 39. Copy of I Card . Mark PW1/39
40. Copy of PAN Card Mark PW1/40.
41. Copy of Aadhar Card Mark PW1/41.
42. Salary slip of defendant for the Mark PW1/42.
month of July 2019
43. Salary slip of defendant for Mark PW1/43.
the month of August 2019
44. Copy of the passbook along Mark PW1/44.
with the statement of the defendant
45. Copy of offer of allotment of Mark PW1/45.
govt. accommodation
46. Copy of PAN Card of the Mark PW1/46.
surety
47. Copy of Aadhar Card of the Mark PW1/47.
surety
48. Original cheque dated Ex.PW1/48 06.02.2024 in the sum of Rs.14 lakhs
49. Copy of returning memo Ex.PW1/49.
50. Copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW1/50.
26.02.2024
51. Original postal and courier Ex.PW1/51 to receipts along with the Ex.PW1/60. tracking reports
52. Non-starter report dated Ex.PW1/61.
28.08.2024
53. Certificate under Section 63 of Ex.PW1/62.
Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 9 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:03
+0530
17. PW2 Alok Kumar is a summoned witness from SDM Office, Darya Ganj. He deposed that he has been directed to appear before the court by the SDM and stated that the requisite summoned record is not traceable. In this regard, he produced the report of the SDM (Kotwali) Ex.PW2/A.
18. PW3 B.S Rawat a witness from Bank of India produced the summoned record i.e. statement of account of Vijay Kumar pertaining to account no. 38750310405 for the period from 25.08.2020 to 27.12.2022 Ex.PW3/A.
19. PW4 Amit Kumar, another summoned witness from Kotak Mahindra Bank produced the summoned record i.e. statement of account of Vijay Kumar pertaining to account no. 2046679325 for the period from 01.01.2023 to 03.12.2023 Ex.PW4/A.
20. PW5 Anant Nag is also a summoned witness from Canara Bank, MAMC, who produced the record pertaining to account no. 90682010093875 in the name of Vijay Kumar for the period from 01.10.2019 to 05.10.2019 Ex.PW5/A.
21. PW1 Neeraj Nath Sharma, PW2 Alok Kumar and PW5 Anand Nag were cross examined by the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 10 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:00
+0530
Ld. Counsel for the defendant. PW3 B.S Rawat and PW4 Amit Kumar were not cross examined by the defendant despite the opportunity being given.
22. In support of his case, the defendant has examined himself as DW1, Jyotish Kumar Gupta from Kotak Mahindra Bank as DW2 and Anantnag Giridhar Ramteke from Canara Bank as DW3.
23. DW1 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW1/A and has deposed in consonance with the stand as taken in the written statement.
24. DW2 Jyotish Kumar Gupta is a summoned witness from Kotak Mahindra Bank who produced the bank statement pertaining to account no. 2046679325 in the name of Vijay Kumar (defendant) for the period 08.7.2022 to 29.11.2025 ExDW2/B (colly) and communication dated 01.12.2025 ExDW2/A.
25. DW3 Anantnag Giridhar Ramteke is also a summoned witness from the Canara Bank who produced the record pertaining to account no.90682010093875 in the name of Vijay Kumar(defendant) for the period from 01.01.2018 to Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 11 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:58
+0530
31.12.2024 ExDW3/A.
26. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff. However, DW2 and DW3 were not cross examined by the plaintiff despite the opportunity.
Arguments made by the Ld. Counsels:
27. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has made the following submissions:-
i. It stands proved that the plaintiff had advanced the loan in the sum of Rs 13,89,000/- to the defendant against which the defendant executed loan agreement, promissory note etc., which have not been denied by the defendant.
ii. Initially, the defendant regularly paid interest on the aforesaid loan amount; however, subsequently, the defendant defaulted in payment of the interest and also failed to refund the principal amount.
iii. In order to discharge his legal liability the defendant has issued a cheque ExPW1/48 in the sum of Rs 14,00,000/- which on presentation got dishonored.
iv. The only defence of the defendant is that whatever the money had been taken by the defendant, the same has already been returned by him but the defendant has not led any evidence to prove the same.
v. The defendant has admitted of having executed the loan documents and also his signatures thereon which support the claim of the plaintiff . vi. Regarding the allegation of the defendant that the plaintiff had taken the ATM card of the defendant Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 12 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:02
+0530
and withdrew the money from the bank, it was stated that the aforesaid contention has been raised just to avoid the legal liability; it has come on the record that no complaint was ever made by the defendant against the plaintiff for the aforesaid alleged act on the part of the plaintiff. vii. The plaintiff was having a requisite money lending licence ExPW1/1; the plaintiff had applied for its renewal vide application ExPW1/2 dated 10.02.2009 but the said application has been kept in abeyance by the department as evident from the reply to the RTI application of the plaintiff ExPW1/4, therefore the case of the plaintiff is covered u/s 5 of the Punjab Money Lender Act.
viii. The issuance of the cheque ExPW1/48 itself is a conclusive proof that an amount of Rs 14,00,000/- is due and outstanding against the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.
ix. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:-
(a) Suman Goel & Anrs vs Sanjay Kumar Jain, RFA No. 98/2018, D.o.D 5.2.2018 (DHC)
(b) First Lucre Partnership Co. Vs Abhinandan Jain, CS (OS) 574/2011 D.o.D 25.7.2013 (DHC)
(c) Gorgekutty Chacko Vs M.N Saji, CA 11309/2025, SC 01.09.2025
(d) Virender Singh vs Deepak Bhatia, CrLP 491/2011 D.o.D 08.04.2013 DHC
28. Ld. Counsel for the defendant made the following submissions:-
i. The present suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act,1938 as the plaintiff is/was not having a valid money lending licence; the copy of the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 13 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:59
+0530
licence placed on record ExPW1/1 indicates that it has already expired in the year 2009 and the alleged loan transactions are of the year 2019.
ii. Regarding the renewal application having been moved by the plaintiff ExPW1/2, it was stated that the said application was never moved by the plaintiff as the record pertaining to the said application was not available in the SDM office, as deposed by PW2 Alok Kumar. iii. The plaintiff is relying upon certain documents i.e loan agreement, promissory notes etc but the signatures and the thumb impressions of the defendant on the said documents were obtained on blank printed papers which were subsequently misused by the plaintiff. iv. By drawing my attention towards the cross examination of PW1 Neeraj Nath Sharma, it was stated that during his cross examination, it has come on the record that the execution of the documents is doubtful; no independent witness was examined by the plaintiff in order to prove said documents.
v. While addressing the stand of the plaintiff regarding issuance of the cheque ExPW1/48 by the defendant, it was stated that the said cheque was never issued in discharge of any legal liability; the presumptions available in favour of the plaintiff have been duly rebutted by the defendant as evident from the cross examination of PW1; there is nothing on record suggesting that there was existing liability when the said cheque was presented for encashment; the said cheque had been issued as a security and it was blank when it was signed by the defendant, which was misused by the plaintiff.
vi. The plaintiff has taken the ATM card belonging to the defendant under good faith which was misused by the plaintiff; the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 14 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:59
+0530
plaintiff withdrew the money from the account of the defendant by using the said card on various occasions but the credit was not given to the defendant.
vii. No amount is due and outstanding against the defendant and the present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
viii. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:-
ix. Rajendra Anant Varik Vs Govind B. Prabhugaonkar, 2025 INSC 633. x. Ramesh Kumar vs Amandeep Singh, 2024 NCPHHC 99269 xi. Kirpal Singh Vs Narender Singh, 2026 NCPHHC 22859
29. I have perused the record and heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties. I have also gone through the case laws cited at the bar.
Discussion, Analysis and findings on the Issues
30. Before giving the findings on the issues, I deem it appropriate to deal with one of the legal objections raised on behalf of the defendant to the effect that the present suit is barred by the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act,1938. During the arguments, Section 3,5 and 6 of the aforesaid Act has been pressed into service, which reads as under:
Section 3. Suits and applications by money- lenders barred, unless money-lender is registered and licensed. -
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 15 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:01
+0530
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan, or an application by a money-lender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be dismissed, unless the money-lender -
(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of the application for execution; or
(b) at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the application for execution -
(i) is registered; and
(ii) holds a valid licence, in such form and manner as may be prescribed; or
(iii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under section 11, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application for execution is presented; or
(iv) if he is not already a registered and licensed money-lender, satisfies the Court that he has applied to the Collector to be registered and licensed and that such application is pending : provided that in such a case, the suit or application shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the money-lender for registration and grant of licence pending before the Collector is finally disposed of.
Section 5. Licensing of money-lenders. - Every money-lender may apply to the Collector for a licence which shall be granted for such period, in such form, and on such conditions, and on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed. Explanation. - When an application for the renewal of a licence has been received from a licensed money-lender before the expiry of his licence, the existing licence, shall be deemed to continue in force Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 16 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:57
+0530
until orders on the application have been issued.
Section 6. Where licence may be cancelled. -
A licence may be cancelled by the Collector and shall not be renewed for such period as may be specified by him, if after the commencement of this Act, a money-lender commits an act or is guilty of an omission with reference to which he -
(i) has been held by a Court to have contravened the provisions of section 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, in more than two suits;
(ii) has had his suit dismissed, in whole or in part, under section 37 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act;
(iii) has had his suit dismissed with a finding that he has made, dishonestly or fraudulently, a material alteration in any document relating to a loan;
(iv) has had his suit dismissed with a finding that it is fraudulent;
(v) has been found by a Court to have charged higher rates of interest than those prescribed under section 5 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act in more than one suit;
(vi) has been found guilty by a Court of forgery or cheating in respect of a money transaction :
Provided that the Collector shall not cancel a licence until the prescribed period of appeal, revision or review, as the case may be, has expired; or in case of appeal, revision or review, the appeal, revision or review has been finally decided.
31. Section 3 of the said Act states that a suit filed by a money lender for recovery of a loan should be dismissed unless the money lender holds a valid licence in such form and manner. In view of the explanation attached to section 5 of the Punjab Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 17 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:59
+0530
Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938, which states that where an application for renewal of a licence is pending the licence shall be deemed to continue.
32. In the present case, in order to establish that the plaintiff was having a valid money lender licence and also that he had made a request for renewal of such licence before its expiry, the plaintiff has examined himself and also one witness namely Alok Kumar as PW2 from the office of SDM, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
33. PW1 Neeraj Nath Sharma in his evidence filed by way of affidavit ExPW1/A, deposed that he is a license holder and used to carry on the business of money lending within the area of National Capital Territory of Delhi; his money lending licence was valid at the time of granting the loan to the defendant because, he had already applied for its renewal before its expiry but due to the government policy it was kept in abeyance since April 2007. He has also referred to the RTI application having been moved by him and the reply thereto. PW1 has referred the money lending licence as ExPW1/1, the application dated 10.02.2009 seeking renewal of Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 18 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:02
+0530
licence as ExPW1/2, RTI application dated
24.08.2009 as ExPW1/3, reply dated 18.11.2009 and application dated 09.11.2009 alongwith reply given by the the department as ExPW1/4 and ExPW1/5 respectively.
34. During the cross examination also, PW1 reiterated his aforesaid stand while stating that he has been in the business of money lending since the year 2005; his money lending licence expired in the month of February 2009; he had already applied for renewal of his licence before its expiry. He replied that he had personally visited the office of SDM and submitted the application ExPW1/2 on 11.02.2009; denied the suggestion that he had never visited the SDM office on that day.
35. Even during the cross examination of PW1, the defendant failed to elicit anything to demolish the aforesaid stand of the plaintiff. PW1 has categorically deposed that he is a licence holder and proved the same as ExPW1/1 which indicates that the same was issued to the plaintiff having the validity upto 12.02.2009.The defendant as such has not raised any objection to the said license. Not even a suggestion was put to the witness assailing the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 19 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:00
+0530
validity and genuineness of the said licence and only fact which brought on record was that the said license has already expired. Thus, It stands established that the plaintiff was having a valid licence at least up to 12.02.2009.
36. Coming to the renewal of licence, it is the case of the plaintiff that vide application dated 10.02.2009 ExPW1/2 he made a request to the SDM concerned for renewal of his licence. It is further stated by him that as per the reply to his RTI application ExPW1/4 and ExPW1/5 his request for renewal of the licence was not decided pursuant to the directions of RBI.
37. In order to prove that the plaintiff had made a request for renewal of the licence, he has examined one witness from the office of SDM namely Alok Kumar as PW2 who stated that the requite records could not be traced and he produced the report of SDM ExPW2/A. During his cross examination PW2 Alok Kumar stated that he cannot tell whether the application Ex.PW1/2 was received by the SDM office or not. He further stated that as and when any document is submitted to the SDM office, there is a receipt counter and after receiving any Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 20 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:58
+0530
communication one is kept by the office and receiving is issued; the receiving would have the stamp of the office, date and the diary number. PW2 denied the suggestion that in case the aforesaid document is not having the diary number, therefore, it was never submitted and explained while stating that sometimes a new person receiving the communication may not put the diary number.
38. In the background of the aforesaid testimony of PW2 now it is to be seen whether by the standard of preponderance of probabilities it stands established that the plaintiff had moved the application seeking renewal of the license or not?
39. PW1 Neeraj Nath Sharma has referred to the copy of the RTI application dated 24.08.2009 Ex.PW1/3, Reply dated 18.11.2009 Ex.PW1/4 and supply for information dated 09.11.2009 Ex.PW1/5. The communication dated 18.11.2009 ExPW1/4, indicates that the information sought by the applicant (plaintiff) was enclosed vide letter no. 109/679 dated 09.11.2009 ExPW1/5. As per the communication ExPW1/5 dated 09.11.2009, it was informed to the plaintiff that according to a report by a technical group of the Reserve Bank of India, the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 21 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:57
+0530
government is reviewing its policy on money- lending licenses and consequently, there is a hold on the issuance of such licenses. Vide said communication dated 09.11.2009 ExPW1/5, the plaintiff appears to have asked the authorities the reasons for not issuing the licence. The said communication also has a reference of licence ExPW1/1 valid from 13.2.2006 to 12.2.2009.
40. The aforesaid communication and other records indicate that there was a request from the side of the plaintiff to the authorities for renewal of the licence. Even if PW2 Alok Kumar could not produce the requisite record that cannot be a ground to reject the case of the plaintiff that he had applied for renewal of the money lending licence and the same is still pending with the authorities. There may be more than one reasons for non availability of the records but that cannot be connected to the contentions of the defendant that had there been any application moved on behalf of the plaintiff for renewal of the licence, the same could have been easily traced by the department. Similarly, even if the communication dated 10.02.2009 ExPW1/2, seeking renewal of the licence is not having diary Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 22 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:02
+0530
number etc., in the present case, the same also cannot be a sufficient ground to doubt the genuiness of the said communication as PW2 Ashok Kumar has explained that sometime a new person receiving the communication may not put the diary number.
41. Thus, it stands established that the plaintiff had applied for renewal of the licence vide application dated 10.02.2009 ExPW1/2 and the same is still pending.
42. Having said so, in view of the explanation to the Section 5 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938, which states that where an application for renewal of licence is pending, the license shall be deemed to be continued, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is not having any valid money lender licence is to be rejected, hence stands rejected.
43. Pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938, were also pressed into service by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant but it could not be explained as to how the case of the plaintiff comes within the ambit of the aforesaid provision of the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 23 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:00
+0530
law. The section 6 of the said Act speaks about cancellation of the licence by the collector under certain circumstances as mentioned therein which are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the evidence adduced by the parties is not sufficient to bring the case under the said provision of law.
44. Now, this takes me to give findings on the issues.
Issue No.1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of an amount of Rs 14,00,000/- from the defendant, as prayed for ? (OPP)
45. The case of the plaintiff, as set up by way of the present suit is that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs 13,89,000/- from the plaintiff on various occasions out of which the defendant made the part payment of Rs 7,00,000/- which was adjusted towards the interest; in order to discharge the outstanding liability, the defendant had issued a cheque in the sum of Rs 14,00,000/- to the plaintiff; when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored, hence, the present suit was filed.
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 24 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:59
+0530
46. The aforesaid averments have been assailed by the defendant on the ground that whatever the loan had been taken by the defendant, the same was duly repaid; the ATM Card of the defendant was in the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was withdrawing the money by using that ATM card; the cheque in question had been issued as a blank cheque and as a security; the agreements, pro-notes, promissory notes, receipts etc., were signed by the defendant when the same were blank.
47. It would be relevant to refer to the evidence led by both the parties particularly the testimonies of the PW1 and DW1 who are the main contesting parties. Both these witnesses have filed their evidence by way of affidavits ExPW1/A and ExDW1/A which is nothing but reiteration of their respective pleadings and the same has already been noted in the initial paragraphs. So, I would be referring to their cross examination which is relevant to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and not otherwise.
48. Here it is relevant to refer to the cross examination of DW1 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay. During his cross examination, DW1 admitted that he had Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 25 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:57
+0530
received the legal notice issued by the plaintiff; he did not make any complaint against the plaintiff after receipt of the said legal notice regarding his allegations that plaintiff has created false and fabricated documents. He had also not made any complaint regarding his contention that the plaintiff had taken his ATM card and has withdrawn the money from his (DW1) account by using said ATM card. DW1 has admitted his signatures and thumb impressions on the agreement ExPW1/6, declaration Ex.PW1/7, another declaration/surety affidavit Ex.PW1/8, pronotes and promissory notes/receipts Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/10, Ex.PW1/12, Ex.PW1/13, Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/20, Ex.PW1/21, Ex.PW1/22, Ex.PW1/23, Ex.PW1/26 and Ex.PW1/27 but stated that he had signed the aforesaid documents when the same were blank. He admitted that the aforesaid documents had been signed by his wife also. He further admitted that he had not made any complaint against the plaintiff even after receipt of the summons of the present case regarding the manipulation of the aforesaid documents by the plaintiff.
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 26 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:56
+0530
49. DW1 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay further stated that as and when the payments were made to the plaintiff by way of withdrawal through the ATM Card that included the portion of interest also and denied the suggestion that the said payments were towards the interest only. He admitted that on various occasions, the loan amount was given to him by the plaintiff through UPI also. Regarding the returning of loan amount, DW1 stated that he had returned the said amount through UPI or in cash or through ATM withdrawal which was made by the plaintiff, but DW1 is not having any proof in writing regarding the aforesaid payments made by him to the plaintiff. When DW1 was asked as to what exact amount was returned, he simply stated that whatever money he had received from the plaintiff, the same was duly returned.
50. From the aforesaid testimony of DW1 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay, it stands established that the defendant had taken a loan through UPI also and had executed the documents i.e agreement ExPW1/6, declaration Ex.PW1/7, another declaration/surety affidavit Ex.PW1/8, pronotes and promissory notes/receipts Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/10, Ex.PW1/12, Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 27 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:01
+0530
Ex.PW1/13, Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/19, Ex.PW1/20, Ex.PW1/21, Ex.PW1/22, Ex.PW1/23, Ex.PW1/26 and Ex.PW1/27. The stand of the defendant that he had signed the said documents, when they were blank, in the given circumstances, is difficult to be digested.
51. The documents in question, namely the loan agreement, declarations, pronotes/promissory notes, etc., are drafted and formatted in such a manner that no prudent person can reasonably believe that the same were signed and thumb-marked while being blank. The manner in which these documents have been prepared, as well as the placement of the signatures and thumb impressions thereon, clearly indicates that it would be virtually impossible to append signatures and thumb impressions on blank documents.
52. Further, on the pronotes and the receipts relating to the promissory notes, the signatures and thumb impressions have also been affixed on the revenue stamps. Although the defendant has alleged that the said documents were signed while blank, no explanation whatsoever has been furnished as to the purpose for which such documents were signed. The Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 28 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:00
+0530
pronotes and promissory notes are in printed format, containing duly typed requisite particulars, yet no explanation has been provided as to why these documents were executed even assuming that they had initially been blank. Moreover, one of the promissory notes, Ex. PW1/10, specifically contains a reference to payment having been made by the plaintiff to the defendant through cheque, and the particulars of the said cheque have also been mentioned therein. It is nowhere the case of the defendant that no such payment through the cheque had been received by him which inturn support claim of the plaintiff.
53. Here I may refer to the testimony of PW1 Neeraj Nath Sharma. During his cross examination he replied that he does not maintain the accounts of his borrowers who had taken money from him; he does not maintain the pukka account and maintain only the kacha account; the interest is calculated initially on the principal amount and if the part payment is made then further interest is calculated on the remaining amount after deducting the part payment from the principal amount; the defendant never made the part payment in respect of the Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 29 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:01
+0530
principal amount and only the payment in respect of the interest was paid. PW1 further replied that loan agreement Ex.PW1/6 was prepared by him from the typist and it was not registered but it was notarized. He has denied the suggestion that the loan agreement ExPW1/6, was prepared by him while sitting at home and stated that the said loan agreement was prepared and executed in the presence of the defendant and his wife, who is also a witness to the said loan agreement.
54. PW1 further stated that at the time of execution of the documents i.e. loan agreement and various other documents, the defendant, his wife and he (PW1) were present and no other person in respect of these documents was present. He has denied the suggestion that the aforesaid documents were manipulated by him. PW1 admitted that as and when the payment is returned back by the borrower a kachi receipt is maintained by him but in the present case since no payment was returned back in respect of the principal amount therefore, no such receipt was placed on record. He replied that he did not gave any notice or any communication in writing to the defendant prior to legal notice dated 26.02.2024 Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 30 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:58
+0530
Ex.PW1/50; whatever the transactions or the dealing had taken place with the defendant, the same has been reflected in para no.7 of my plaint in a table and except that no other transaction took place between him and the defendant.
55. Even during the cross-examination, no substantial or material facts could be elicited so as to discredit or demolish the case of the plaintiff. Not even a suggestion was put to PW1 that at the time of execution of the documents, namely the loan agreement, pronotes, and promissory notes, the same were blank when the defendant affixed his signatures and thumb impressions thereon, or that the wife of the defendant was not a witness to the said documents. Further, during the course of cross- examination, no question was put to PW1 explaining the purpose for which the defendant would have signed the said documents in blank. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the plaintiff has been able to establish that the defendant had executed the aforesaid loan documents while availing loans from the plaintiff on various dates.
56. Here I may mention that both the parties have examined a few witnesses from various banks and Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 31 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:02
+0530
thereby brought on record the statement of accounts pertaining to the various accounts maintained by the defendant. In this regard, the plaintiff has examined PW3 B.S Rawat from State Bank of India, PW4 Amit from Kotak Mahindra Bank and PW5 Anant Nag from Canara Bank who produced the records ExPW3/A, ExPW4/A and ExPW5/A respectively. Similarly, the defendant has examined DW2 Jyotish Kumar Gupta from Kotak Mahindra Bank and DW3 Anantnag Giridhar Ranteke from Canara Bank who produced the record ExDW2/B (Colly) and ExDW3/A (colly) respectively.
57. Both the parties as such have not disputed the aforesaid records produced by the witnesses which basically indicate the certain transactions between the parties. None of the parties made efforts to exactly connect a particular transaction as indicated in the said record with their respective contentions raised during the trial of the present case. Be that as it may, the aforesaid records also indicates the financial transactions between the parties supporting the claim of the plaintiff.
58. Coming to the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had taken possession of the defendant's Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 32 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:58
+0530
ATM card and withdrawn money therefrom, it may be noted that the defendant has miserably failed to substantiate the said plea. Apart from making bald and vague averments, no evidence whatsoever has been led by the defendant to prove the same. It has come on record that even after receipt of the legal notice Ex. PW1/50 and despite service of summons in the present suit, the defendant, till date, has not lodged any complaint against the plaintiff. Further, neither the exact date on which the ATM card was allegedly handed over nor the date on which it was returned, has been disclosed. Similarly, no particulars have been furnished regarding the dates on which the alleged withdrawals were made. The defendant has also failed to place on record any bank statement or statement of account in support of such allegations. The averments made in this regard are vague, general, and devoid of material particulars. Accordingly, this contention of the defendant also deserves to be rejected.
59. The next contention of the defendant was that the cheque in question was issued as a security cheque. Merely saying that the cheques had been issued as security would not suffice the matter. The Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 33 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:56
+0530
defendant has not denied having issued the cheque ExPW1/48. The only objection of the defendant is that the cheque was given as a security cheque and later the plaintiff has misused the same.
60. During the cross examination of PW1, not even a suggestion was put to the witness that the cheque in question had been issued as security cheque and in this regard, the testimony of PW1 has gone unbreached.
61. DW1 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay during his cross examination replied that he was aware of the fact that to whom he had issued the cheque in question and he came to know about the dishonour of the cheque in question at the time when he visited his bank. This all show that the defence, as taken by the defendant that the cheque in question had been issued as a security is a sham defence and has been taken without any basis just to avoid the legal liability. A prudent man would never be so ignorant about the issuance of a blank cheque without any solid reason. The defendant has not explained as to for what purpose the cheque in question had been issued as a security and why the defendant never asked the plaintiff to return the same. This all Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 34 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:01
+0530
supports the story of the plaintiff that the cheque in question ExPW1/48 had been issued by the defendant in discharge of his legal liability.
62. Here I may mention that in a significant departure from the general rule applicable to contracts, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides certain presumptions to be raised. This section lays down some special rules of evidence relating to presumptions. The reason for these presumptions is that, negotiable instruments pass from hand to hand on endorsement and it would make trading very difficult and negotiability of the instrument impossible, unless certain presumptions are made. The presumption, therefore, is a matter of principle to facilitate negotiability as well as trade. Section 118 of the Act provides presumptions to be raised until the contrary is proved (i) as to consideration, (ii) as to date of instrument, (iii) as to time of acceptance, (iv)as to time of transfer, (v) as to order of indorsements, (vi) as to appropriate stamp, and (vii) as to holder being a holder in due course.
63. It goes without saying that the presumptions are devices by use of which the courts are enabled Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 35 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:02
+0530
and entitled to pronounce on an issue
notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the then Evidence Act or the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023, all presumptions must come under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) "may presume" (rebuttable), (2) "shall presume"
(rebuttable), and (3) "conclusive presumptions"
(irrebuttable). The term "presumption" is used to designate an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact, conveniently called the "presumed fact" drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption literally means "taking as true without examination or proof".
64. Here I may also note the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Official Receiver v. Abdul Shakoor, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 172, which are as under:-
"16. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act authorises the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 36 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:03
+0530
events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Under the third illustration of Section 114 the Court may presume that a bill of exchange accepted or endorsed was accepted for good consideration. But the section provides, that the Court shall also have regard to other material facts in considering whether the maxim does or does not apply in the particular case before it, it is therefore open to the Court to consider in its proper setting, the fact that the drawer of a bill of exchange was a man of business, and the acceptor was a young and ignorant person completely under the former's influence. This is one illustrative fact which the Court may consider in raising the presumption. There may be other circumstances which may also justify the Court in declining to raise the presumption. Mr Pathak for the respondents urged that the Indian Evidence Act was enacted in 1872 and the Negotiable Instruments Act having been enacted in 1881, and as the two provisions conflict or overlap, Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must supersede Section 114 of the Evidence Act. We are unable to accept that contention. Undoubtedly Section 114 of the Evidence Act is a general provision which enables the Court to presume, though not obliged to do so, that a bill of exchange or a promissory note was founded on a good consideration. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, however, enacts a special rule of evidence which operates between parties to the instrument or persons claiming under them in a suit or proceeding relating to the bill of exchange and does not affect the rule contained in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, in cases not falling within Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act."
65. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P. Balasubramanian"
Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 37 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:02
+0530
(2021) 5 SCC 283, examines the scope and ambit of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, to hold:
" 14. Once the 2nd appellant had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the deed, the trial Court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt. The trial Court fell in error when it called upon the respondent complainant to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay. Such approach of the trial Court was directly in the teeth of the established legal position as discussed above, and amounts to a patent error of law.
xx xx xx
17. Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite "Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar", where this court held that:
"Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt."
18. Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship between the parties, we are of the opinion that the defence raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence or meet the standard of 'preponderance of probability'. In the absence of any other relevant material, it Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 38 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:45:59
+0530
appears to us that the High Court did not err in discarding the appellants' defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of the NIA."
66. In a recent case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once execution of cheque is admitted, presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arise. It was further observed as under:-
"15. In the present case, the cheque in question has admittedly been signed by respondent No. 1- accused. This court is of the view that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the holder of the cheque received the said cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arise against the accused. It is pertinent to mention that observations to the contrary by a two-judge Bench in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde; 2008 SCC OnLine SC 106.] have been set aside by a three- judge Bench in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan; 2010 SCC OnLine SC 583. 16. This court is further of the view that by creating this presumption, the law reinforces the reliability of cheques as a mode of payment in commercial transactions. 17. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the M/s Phool Chand Bhagat Singh Vs Vikas Aggarwal Date of judgment Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 39 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:01
+0530
14.01.2026 (Page 27 of 30 ) accused/drawer of the cheque (see : Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar 2019 SCC OnLine SC 138) . 18. The judgment of this court in APS Forex Services P. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers [(2020) 12 SCC 724; (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 505; 2020 SCC OnLine SC 193.] relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No. 1- accused only says that the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and when the same is rebutted, the onus would shift back to the complainant to prove his financial capacity, more particularly, when it is a case of giving loan by cash. This judgment nowhere states, as was sought to be contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1-accused, that in cases of dishonour of cheques, in lieu of cash loans, the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not arise.
Approach of some courts below to not give effect to the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is contrary to mandate of Parliament"
67. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, as narrated herein above, the plea of the defendant that cheque in question had been issued as security, being devoid of merits is also liable to be rejected, hence stands rejected.
68. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been able to demonstrate that the defendant had issued the cheque ExPW1/48 for discharging the legal debt which was never honored and consequently, an amount of Rs 14,00,000/- is due and outstanding Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 40 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:00
+0530
against the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same. Hence, issue no.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue no.2.
In case, if the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest? If so at what rate and for what period ?(OPP)
69. The plaintiff has claimed the pendente-lite and future interest @ 2% p.m. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that the same is on a higher side. Interest of justice would be met by awarding the interest of justice would be met by awarding pendente-lite and future interest @ 8 % per annum and so is ordered accordinly.
Issue no.3 Relief.
70. In view of my aforesaid discussion, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 14,00,000/-( Rs Fourteen Lakh only) from the defendant.
(ii) Plaintiff is also awarded pendente-lite and future interest @ 8 % p.a .
(iii) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff .
\ Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 41 of 42 ) Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.05.14
10:46:03
+0530
71. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
72. File be consigned to Record Room, as per rules. Digitally signed RAJESH by RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
2026.05.14 GOEL 10:46:20 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 13.05.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 13.05.2026 (digitally signed on 14.05.2026) Neeraj Nath Sharma vs. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Date of decision 13.05.2026 (page no. 42 of 42 )