1991 (2) TMI 430 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Suit based on Bill of Exchange dated 8th August, 1989.
2. Dishonour of the Bill of Exchange and subsequent notices.
3. Defenses raised by the defendants, including absence of consideration and theft plea.
4. Arguments regarding substantial defense and triable issues.
5. Interpretation of sections 269-SS of the Income Tax Act and 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
6. Examination of the presumption of consideration and burden of proof.
7. Plaintiff's obligation to offer account books for inspection.
8. Application of section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. Criteria for granting leave to defend as per Supreme Court judgments.
10. Comparison with previous judgments and relevance of Gujarat High Court case.
11. Decision on granting leave to defend and conditions imposed.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Bombay High Court pertains to two suits based on a Bill of Exchange dated 8th August, 1989, which were disposed of by a common judgment. The suits involved defendants who were drawers and acceptors of the bill. The plaintiff issued notices following the dishonour of the Bill of Exchange, and the defendants responded with requests for inspection without raising any defense. The defendants later raised defenses such as absence of consideration, lack of notice of dishonour, and a plea of theft of signed bills of exchange. The plaintiff argued that the defenses were unsubstantial and relied on previous judgments to support their position.

The defendants contended that they had raised substantial defenses, including issues of consideration, notice, and the impact of income tax laws on the transaction. They emphasized the bar of section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act and the plaintiff's failure to provide account books for inspection. The plaintiff, in response, argued that the theft plea was baseless and that the income tax laws did not hinder the transaction. They also highlighted the legal presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the defendants' lack of evidence to support their defenses.

The Court examined the arguments in light of previous judgments and legal principles. It considered the criteria for granting leave to defend, as outlined by the Supreme Court, and concluded that the defendants' defenses were illusory and unsubstantial. The Court rejected the theft plea and found no merit in the defendants' contentions. The judgment referenced previous cases to support the decision and imposed conditions on the defendants for granting leave to defend.

Ultimately, the Court granted leave to defend on the condition that the defendants deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe. The judgment outlined further procedural steps and set a timeline for the progression of the suits. It also provided instructions regarding the investment of the deposited amount and outlined the consequences of non-compliance with the conditions imposed.