9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Admission of Liability 3. Validity of the Dishonoured Cheque 4. Leave to Defend Application Summary: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The defendants argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cheques were drawn in Chennai and deposited in Dehradun. The plaintiff countered that the cheques were drawn on a Delhi bank account and deposited in Chennai, thus granting jurisdiction to the Delhi court. The court held that the principle of "debtor must seek the creditor" applies, giving the Delhi court jurisdiction since the plaintiff resides in Delhi. 2. Admission of Liability: The defendants admitted to a liability of Rs.12,20,000/- but disputed the remaining Rs.9,01,550/-. The court noted that the defendants' conduct and failure to reply to the legal notice indicated an admission of liability. The court also considered the defendants' balance sheet and other documents confirming the debt. 3. Validity of the Dishonoured Cheque: The defendants claimed the dishonoured cheque was stolen and forged. However, they failed to provide any evidence of reporting the theft or stopping the cheque's payment. The court found the defendants' explanation unconvincing and noted that the cheque bore the defendant No.2's signature. The court also referenced legal precedents affirming that a blank cheque signed and handed over implies authority to fill in the amount. 4. Leave to Defend Application: The defendants' application for leave to defend was dismissed as their defenses were deemed frivolous, vexatious, and moonshine. The court found no substantial defense disclosed in the application. Conclusion: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the principal sum of Rs.21,21,550/-. Interest was awarded at 10% per annum from the date of dishonour of the cheque until the date of payment. The plaintiff was also entitled to the costs of the suit as per the schedule.
|
