9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cheque issued by the defendants and the hand letter are supported by consideration. 2. Whether the defendants had obtained the loan from the plaintiff. 3. Whether the defendants are liable to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff. 4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the cheque issued by the defendants and the hand letter are supported by consideration: The plaintiff argued that the cheque for Rs. 60,000 issued by the third defendant was towards repayment of a loan. The defendants contended that the cheque was issued in a different context related to a joint tender for Madras Fertilizers Limited and was not supported by consideration. The trial court wrongly placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove the passing of consideration under the cheque, despite the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that a negotiable instrument is presumed to be for consideration. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to provide acceptable evidence to rebut this presumption, thus holding that the cheque was supported by consideration. 2. Whether the defendants had obtained the loan from the plaintiff: The plaintiff's case was that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 borrowed Rs. 60,000. The defendants denied receiving any loan and claimed that the cheque was issued for a different purpose. The appellate court noted that the trial court failed to properly consider the admissions made by the third defendant regarding the issuance and purpose of the cheque. The appellate court found that the defendants' evidence was contradictory and unreliable, reinforcing the plaintiff's claim that the loan was indeed taken. 3. Whether the defendants are liable to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff: The trial court dismissed the suit, believing the defendants' version that the cheque was not issued for repayment of a loan but for a joint tender. The appellate court, however, found that the defendants did not discharge their burden of proving that the cheque was not supported by consideration. The appellate court held that the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, thus establishing the defendants' liability to repay the loan. 4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit: The third defendant contested the jurisdiction of the Mayiladuthurai court, arguing that the cause of action arose in Madras. However, the appellate court did not find merit in this argument, as the trial court had already framed issues and proceeded with the case. The appellate court did not specifically address this issue in detail, implying that the jurisdiction was deemed appropriate. 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled: The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the repayment of Rs. 60,000 with costs, as the defendants failed to rebut the legal presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Conclusion: The appellate court found that the trial court had misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence and failed to properly apply the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, entitling them to the repayment of Rs. 60,000 with costs.
|
