2015 (9) TMI 1754 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - time limitation - It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant- defendant that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation - HELD THAT - The assertion of the counsel for the appellant-defendant that the respondent-plaintiff has failed to establish that he was a Travel Agent and the money had exchanged hands would not be of any consequence as there is no explanation on the part of the appellant-defendant with regard to the issuance of the cheque in question which has been duly proved. That apart the denial of the signatures by the appellant-defendant on the cheque also cannot be accepted as the respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove on the basis of the evidence and in fact admission that the cheque book and cheque leaf were of the account of the appellant-defendant. Since the appellant-defendant had denied his signatures the onus was on him to prove that the cheque did not bear his signature but unfortunately he did not produce any expert evidence in support of this assertion of his. Further the cheque has been returned by the bank not on the ground that the signature on the cheque is not of the appellant-defendant but because of insufficient funds. Signing and issuing cheque in favour of the respondent-plaintiff would amount to owing and acknowledging the liability by the appellant-defendant. All these go to prove beyond doubt that the appellant-defendant had acknowledged and accepted his debt. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal which requires consideration of this Court - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Making good the deficiency in Court fee.
3. Challenge to judgments and decree passed by lower Courts regarding recovery of a specific amount.

Condonation of Delay in Refiling the Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a 52-day delay in refiling the appeal due to non-availability of the required court fee. The delay was attributed to the time taken to obtain the necessary amount to deposit the full court fee. The application was supported by an affidavit. The Court allowed the application, condoning the delay of 52 days in refiling the appeal.

Making Good the Deficiency in Court Fee:
Another application was filed to rectify the deficiency in court fee. It was mentioned that initially, less court fee was affixed, but upon being notified by the Registry, the required court fee stamps were submitted/affixed, eliminating the deficiency. The application was supported by an affidavit. The Court permitted the deficient court fee to be rectified.

Challenge to Judgments and Decree:
The appeal challenged the judgments and decree passed by the lower Courts, where the respondent's suit for recovery of a specific amount was decreed, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed. The appellant argued that the suit was time-barred as the amount was handed over in 2001, and the suit was filed in 2009, beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The appellant also disputed the issuance of a cheque in 2007 and the authenticity of the signatures on it.

The Court considered the submissions and reviewed the lower Courts' judgments. It noted that although the amount was handed over in 2001, the appellant issued a cheque in 2007 as an acknowledgment of the debt, falling within the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, preventing the suit from being time-barred. The Court referenced a judgment from the Bombay High Court to support this interpretation.

The appellant's reliance on a different judgment was deemed misplaced, as it contradicted his argument and supported the enforceability of time-barred debts upon acknowledgment of liability. The Court found that the suit was filed within the limitation period from the date of the cheque issuance. The appellant's denial of being a Travel Agent and disputing the signatures on the cheque was dismissed, as the evidence presented by the respondent established the appellant's liability and acknowledgment of the debt.

Both lower Courts had reached concurrent findings after properly evaluating the evidence, without any legal errors or irregularities. The Court concluded that no substantial legal question required further consideration, and hence, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of condonation of delay in refiling the appeal, rectifying the deficiency in court fee, and the challenge to the judgments and decree passed by the lower Courts regarding the recovery of a specific amount.