Aman Goyal vs Aneet Goel on 25 April, 2023
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the findings
of the Courts below are perverse. The evidence on record by way of cross-
examination of the complainant has been misread and misconstrued. The
complainant has failed to prove his capacity to advance such a huge sum of
money. Proof of payment is also not there on record as the complainant
has failed to produce any written agreement or any other record regarding
the alleged investment. He has also failed to produce his income tax
returns. The presumption in favour of the complainant stood rebutted but
the Courts below have failed to hold so. Thus, the petition deserves to
succeed. Reliance is placed upon judgments dated 21.07.2022, in CRA-
AS-147-2022, Pamod @ Parmod Kumar vs. Geeta Devi, dated
25.07.2022, in CRA-AS-152-2022, Tarsem Chand vs. Manjit Kaur
ANKUR GOYAL
2023.04.25 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
2023:PHHC:058029
CRR No.503 of 2023 (O&M) [4]
Vashisht and dated 06.04.2022 in CRM-A-2271-MA-2017, Sukhdial vs.
Devi Lal.