Delhi High Court
Sukhbir Singh Panchal & Anr. vs Amandeep Singh Chhabra & Anr. on 12 September, 2017
Author: Valmiki J.Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 737/2017 and CM Appls. 29749-51/2017
% 12th September, 2017
SUKHBIR SINGH PANCHAL & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sudhir K. Suneja,
Advocate
versus
AMANDEEP SINGH CHHABRA & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 18.4.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC and has decreed the suit for the sum of Rs.13 lacs along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum. The principal amount claimed in the suit of Rs.13 lacs is the total amount due on six dishonored cheques. Appellant no.1/defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor of the appellant no.2/defendant no.1. RFA No. 737/2017 Page 1 of 6
2. The facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that there was business relations between the respondent no.1/plaintiff (hereinafter respondent/plaintiff) and appellants/defendants whereby the respondent/plaintiff had generated the lead for the work of digital marketing for Consumer Technical Support for USA & Canada, which lead was transferred/sold to different Call Centers for valuable price. The appellants/defendants were running a Call Centre to which respondent/plaintiff is said to have transferred various leads from December 2014 to July 2015. With respect to different amounts which were due to the respondent/plaintiff from the appellants/defendants, and which totals to a sum of Rs.15,05,207.90/-, the appellants/defendants is said to have furnished cheques for an amount of Rs.13 lacs to the respondent/plaintiff as detailed below :-
SL. CHEQUE DRAWN DATED AMOUNT REMARKS
NO NUMBER FROM (IN RS.)
1. 000026 HDFC BANK 01.06.2015 1,00,000/- FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT
2. 000048 HDFC BANK 15.07.2015 3,00,000/- FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT
3. 000049 HDFC BANK 15.07.2015 2,00,000/- FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT
4. 000054 HDFC BANK 25.07.2015 3,00,000/- FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT
5. 000055 HDFC BANK 25.07.2015 3,00,000/- STOP PAYMENT
6. 000056 HDFC BANK 25.07.2015 1,00,000/- STOP PAYMENT
RFA No. 737/2017 Page 2 of 6
3. The six cheques totaling to the principal amount of Rs.13 lacs were dishonored on presentation by the bank of the appellants/defendants at New Delhi. Respondent/plaintiff, thereafter, served upon the appellants/defendants the legal notice dated 27.08.2015 and then filed the subject suit.
4. Appellants/defendants sought leave to defend by pleading that they had paid a sum of Rs.9 lacs to the respondent/plaintiff in the month of July 2015, and that on payment of this amount of Rs.9 lacs nothing further remained due by the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff. It is also pleaded by the appellants/defendants that the subject cheques were handed over to the respondent/plaintiff not towards any liability for legally recoverable debt but were given only as security.
5. Trial Court has dismissed the leave to defend application and decreed the suit by observing in para 8 of the impugned order that though the appellants/defendants have mentioned in their leave to defend application that an amount of Rs.9 lacs was paid by them to the respondent/plaintiff in July 2015, but the mode of payment is not given and nor any statement of account is filed by the RFA No. 737/2017 Page 3 of 6 appellants/defendants and nor has any receipt been filed of payment allegedly made by the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff. The fact that the six cheques are dishonored and were issued by the appellants/defendants is not disputed.
6. In my opinion, no fault can be found of the trial court in passing the impugned judgment dismissing the leave to defend application because admittedly the six dishonored cheques are of the appellants/defendants as appellant no. 1 is the sole proprietor of appellant no. 2 and whose cheques were issued totaling to a sum of Rs.13 lacs. Trial Court has rightly held that appellants/defendants have failed to file their statements of accounts and which would have shown if any amount was due by the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff. Also, if appellants/defendants claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.9 lacs and on payment of which amount entire liability towards the respondent/plaintiff was said to be satisfied then some proof had to be filed of such payment having been made by the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff but no proof whatsoever has been filed. Trial Court has therefore disbelieved the RFA No. 737/2017 Page 4 of 6 self serving statement of appellants/defendants having paid the sum of Rs.9 lacs to the respondent/plaintiff.
7.(i) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants argued by placing reliance upon the statement of account filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff and it is argued that the suit is filed on the basis of statement of account and not on the dishonored cheques. It is also argued that the dishonored cheques are not shown in the statement of account filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It is also argued that the subject cheques were given as security and not towards any liability or a legally recoverable debt.
(ii) In my opinion, the arguments urged by the appellants/defendants are without any substance because though the respondent/plaintiff filed a statement of account of the amount due, however the amount which is claimed in the suit is only the amount of dishonored cheques and not the total larger amount due in terms of the statement of account. Also, if the cheques were only given as security, the appellants/defendants would have filed their counterfoil of the cheque book to show the cheques being issued continuously only on one date as security, however, the appellants/defendants have not filed RFA No. 737/2017 Page 5 of 6 the counterfoil of the cheque book and therefore, it cannot be argued by the appellants/defendants that the cheques were given as security. In any case, once the appellants/defendants have taken a defence that they have made the payment of Rs.9 lacs in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants however failed to substantiate such a plea, then in such a case, trial court has committed no error in dismissing the leave to defend application and decreeing the suit being the amount of the dishonored cheques. I may note that in terms of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the cheques have to be presumed to be given for consideration.
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
P
RFA No. 737/2017 Page 6 of 6