9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant borrowed the suit claim from the plaintiff by discounting the suit cheques. 2. Whether the decree granted by the trial court is justified. 3. Whether the defendant is entitled to interest at 24% till the date of realization instead of 6% as awarded by the trial court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the defendant borrowed the suit claim from the plaintiff by discounting the suit cheques: The defendant admitted to signing the suit cheques but claimed they were given to the plaintiff's father, Muthiah Chettiar, in blank form for previous transactions and not for the current claims. The plaintiff, however, asserted that the defendant borrowed specific amounts by discounting cheques and agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum. The cheques were seized by the Income Tax Department and returned later, which delayed their presentation. The court noted that the defendant did not provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration unless proved otherwise. The court held that the defendant had indeed borrowed money from the plaintiff by discounting the suit cheques, supported by the plaintiff's account books and ledgers. 2. Whether the decree granted by the trial court is justified: The trial court decreed various sums in favor of the plaintiff with interest and costs. The defendant's contention that the cheques were blank and not meant for the current claims was not substantiated with credible evidence. The court upheld the trial court's findings that the defendant borrowed the amounts as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's evidence, including account books and the consistency of entries, supported the claim. The court found no reason to overturn the trial court's decree regarding the principal amounts owed. 3. Whether the defendant is entitled to interest at 24% till the date of realization instead of 6% as awarded by the trial court: The plaintiff claimed interest at 24% per annum based on the defendant's alleged agreement. However, the court noted that there was no written agreement specifying this rate. Under Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, the interest is calculated at 6% per annum. The court referred to precedents and statutory provisions, concluding that the interest should be 6% per annum from the date the cheques were returned by the bank until realization. The amendment to Section 80, which increased the interest rate to 18%, was not applicable as it came into effect after the transactions in question. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part, modifying the interest rate to 6% per annum from the date the cheques were returned by the bank until realization. The decrees regarding the principal amounts were upheld. The appeals for a higher rate of interest were dismissed. The court emphasized the statutory presumption of consideration for negotiable instruments and the lack of substantial evidence from the defendant to rebut this presumption.
|
