2017 (3) TMI 1271 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery - Held that - Respondents have filed certified copies of the entire proceedings of the complaint case filed by them against the Company, the appellant/plaintiff and the other Directors under Section 138 of NI Act. The said documents have been referred to and dealt with at some length in para 27 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned trial court has observed that the complaint case was settled between the parties after the accused persons including the appellant herein had paid a sum of ₹ 21 lakhs to the respondents. Nowhere in the said proceedings did the appellant take a plea that he had extended a personal loan to the respondent/company and that they had admitted the said liability and agreed to pay back the alleged loan amount to him. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances lends credence to the version of the respondents that the appellant had issued a cheque for ₹ 10 lakh from his personal account in favour of the respondent No.1/Company, but the said payment was in part discharge of the amounts due and payable by his Company towards the price of the goods purchased from the respondents and the said cheque was issued by him because the Company was in financial distress at that time. On a conspectus of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record, it has to be held that the version of the appellant that he had advanced a personal loan of ₹ 10 lakhs to the respondent No.1/Company, remains unsubstantiated. The said version has been conclusively demolished by the respondents/defendants and rightly rejected by the learned trial court as improbable and unbelievable. As a result, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the pending applications.

Issues involved:
Claim of recovery of loan amount with interest; Dispute over cheque issuance and encashment; Allegations of default on loan repayment; Settlement agreement; Dispute over liability for outstanding amounts; Dispute over on-account payments; Allegations of financial crisis in the company; Dishonoured cheques; Legal notice for recovery; Evidence and witness examination in trial court; Interpretation of documentary evidence; Allegations of personal loan issuance; Dispute over loan repayment terms.

Analysis:
1. Claim of recovery of loan amount with interest:
The appellant, as the Managing Director of a company, claimed to have lent a sum of ?10 lakhs to the respondents with an assurance of high interest. The respondents, however, denied owing any amount to the appellant and contended that the cheque issued was towards part discharge of the company's liability. The trial court dismissed the suit as the appellant failed to prove the loan transaction. The High Court upheld the decision, stating the appellant provided no evidence or witness testimony to substantiate the loan claim.

2. Dispute over cheque issuance and encashment:
The appellant issued a cheque for ?10 lakhs from his personal account, which was encashed by the respondents. The respondents argued that the cheque was part of on-account payments for goods purchased by the company. The court found that the appellant's claim of the cheque being a personal loan was unsubstantiated, as per the evidence presented by the respondents.

3. Allegations of default on loan repayment:
The appellant alleged that the respondents defaulted on repaying the loan amount with interest, leading to legal action. However, the respondents contended that the cheque amount was adjusted against the company's outstanding liability. The court noted that the appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the loan transaction, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

4. Settlement agreement:
A settlement was reached between the parties for a reduced amount, which was paid by the company and its directors. The settlement indicated that the company owed a different sum to the respondents, further weakening the appellant's claim of a personal loan transaction.

5. Dispute over liability for outstanding amounts:
The respondents claimed that the company owed a substantial amount to them, which was being adjusted through various transactions. The court considered the documentary evidence provided by the respondents, which contradicted the appellant's claim of a personal loan.

6. Dispute over on-account payments:
The respondents argued that the cheque issued by the appellant was part of on-account payments for goods purchased by the company. The court found merit in the respondents' argument based on the documentary evidence presented.

7. Allegations of financial crisis in the company:
The respondents highlighted a financial crisis faced by the company, which led to adjustments and dishonoured cheques. This financial situation was used to explain the transactions between the parties, further weakening the appellant's claim of a personal loan.

8. Dishonoured cheques:
The respondents mentioned dishonoured cheques issued by the company and its directors, leading to legal notices and subsequent negotiations. The court considered these events in the context of the overall dispute between the parties.

9. Evidence and witness examination in trial court:
The trial court examined the evidence and witness testimonies presented by both parties. The lack of corroborative evidence from the appellant regarding the loan transaction worked against the credibility of the claim.

10. Interpretation of documentary evidence:
The court analyzed the documentary evidence, including letters and proceedings related to the case, to ascertain the nature of the transactions between the parties. The documentary evidence favored the respondents' version of events over the appellant's claims.

11. Allegations of personal loan issuance:
The core issue revolved around whether the cheque issued by the appellant was a personal loan or part of on-account payments. The court concluded that the evidence and circumstances supported the respondents' position that the cheque was not a personal loan but a payment towards the company's liability.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the appellant's suit for recovery of the loan amount, as the appellant failed to substantiate the claim of a personal loan transaction through evidence or witness testimony. The court found the documentary evidence and circumstances favored the respondents' position that the cheque issued was part of on-account payments for goods purchased by the company, rather than a separate personal loan.

← Previous Next →