2008 (10) TMI 598 - SC - Companies Law

Whether there exists any relationship of creditor and debtor between the parties? - Held that - All the three Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding that the complainant has been able to prove his case of grant of a loan. Admittedly the burden of proof shifted to the appellant. Again a finding of fact was arrived at that the appellant had failed to discharge his burden. No case has been made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispute over a loan and dishonored cheques.
2. Allegation of non-service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Burden of proof and presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act.
4. Finding of fact regarding loan grant and burden of proof.
5. Address discrepancy of the complainant.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case revolved around a loan dispute where the respondent allegedly gave a hand loan to the appellant, who issued two cheques in discharge of the debt. The cheques were dishonored, leading to a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The appellant contested the service of notice under Section 138, claiming no creditor-debtor relationship existed. However, the Trial Judge found the relationship established and notice served, supported by the postal acknowledgment and witness testimony.

3. The Act presumes consideration for negotiable instruments under Section 118 and in favor of the holder under Section 139. The burden of proof initially lies with the complainant, and the presumption extends to the discharge of debt or liability. The courts below found the complainant proved the loan grant, shifting the burden to the appellant, who failed to discharge it.

4. The lower courts concurred on the loan grant and failure of the appellant to prove otherwise. The finding of fact regarding the loan and burden of proof was upheld, indicating no grounds for interference by the Supreme Court.

5. The appellant raised an address discrepancy of the complainant, but the courts deemed it irrelevant to the transaction's validity. The courts upheld the findings on the loan, notice service, and address consistency, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and no interference with the impugned judgment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings on the loan, notice service, burden of proof, and address discrepancy. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual findings and adherence to legal presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.