Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

by the banker vide memo dated 23.03.2018. In order to prove the said fact the complainant has produced the e- mail sent to the accused on 13.07.2017 marked as Ex.P11 and e-mail copy dated:19.12.2017 marked as Ex.P12. On perusal of these two e-mails it is crystal clear that the complainant has informed the accused that inspite of work order dt:21.04.2017 and payment of 20% of advance amount of Rs.4,20,000/- on 08.04.2017 no proper action has been taken in completing the project by the accused. Further in the said document the complainant company has de-scoped CD Tower window grill work and request the accused to execute A- B tower work immediately. Further on perusal of Ex.P12 it is found that the complainant company have issued notice to the accused terminating the work order for MS window grill at A-B Block and C-D block Pride Enchanta Project , Mysore Road, Bangalore requesting to refund the advance amount of Rs.4,20,000/- . The said documents being the computer generated is supported by the affidavit and the certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.P13. It is pertinent to note that in the cross examination of PW1 the accused has taken the contention that no such e-mail intimation has been issued to the accused. Per contra, he had invested Rs.8,00,000/- for the purchase of materials for the project. It is vehemently argued by the accused counsel that the accused invested huge amount for completion of the project inspite of that without the knowledge the complainant had terminated the contract by which accused has incurred heavy loss. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that accused has not produced a single document to show that he had started the work on the project and purchased material worth of Rs.8 lakh for the completion of project. Further not produced cogent evidence to prove that the e-mail address mentioned in Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 does not belong to him and he has not received the e-mail regarding termination of contract. In the absence of cogent evidence and relevant document the contention of the accused that he had started working over the project and had invested an amount of Rs.8 lakh and had no knowledge of termination of contract cannot be taken into consideration an accepted. It is the evidence of PW1 that the accused inspite of work orders has not commence the work as per the terms of the work order and after termination of the contract though Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 not replied the e- mails. In view of the same the agreement Ex.P2 and 3 is found to be terminated for the reason that the accused has not complied with the terms of the contract and commence the work. The e-mail copies produced by the complainant has produced Ex.P11 and 12 e-mail copies supported by the certificate u/s 65(b) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P13 dt:13.07.2017 and 19.12.2017 terminated the work order of A-B & C-D blocks. Further in the evidence PW1 deposed that after termination of contract they had demanded the accused for the repayment of 20% project amount of Rs.4,20,000/- for which accused had issued a cheque dt:20.03.2018 which on presentation for encashment returned as Payment stopped by the Drawer. To support the same the complainant has produced the cheque Ex.P5 discloses that the accused has issued a cheque to the complainant on 20.03.2018 for an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- with his signature Ex.P5(a) on the said cheque. Further the document Ex.P6/ bank memo produced by the complainant dislcoses that the said cheque on presentation was dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by the drawer. The dictum of law on their point is crystal clear that even the cheque not honoured for stop payment attract the provision of Section 138 of N.I Act.