2019 (12) TMI 59 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Suit for recovery of outstanding amount - misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record or not - HELD THAT - This Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below which otherwise appear to be based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the respective parties. This Court is fully satisfied and convinced that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference whatsoever in the present matter. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to judgment decree for recovery of a specific amount.
2. Dispute over payment between a registered firm and a government contractor.
3. Admissibility of oral and documentary evidence.
4. Interpretation of substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged a judgment decreeing a suit for recovery of a specific amount. The plaintiff, a registered firm, filed a suit against the defendant, a government contractor, for non-payment of a cheque issued for a settled amount. The trial court decreed the suit for the principal amount along with interest. The appellate court upheld the decision, leading to the appellant's appeal under Section 100 of the CPC.

Issue 2:
The dispute centered on the defendant's claim of settling the amount in cash, while the plaintiff contended non-receipt of the payment. The plaintiff presented evidence, including a dishonored cheque and legal notices, to support the claim. The defendant's witnesses provided conflicting accounts, raising doubts about the cash settlement. The court noted the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act in favor of the plaintiff as the holder of the cheque, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the defendant's cash payment claim.

Issue 3:
The court meticulously analyzed the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties. The plaintiff's witnesses corroborated the issuance and dishonor of the cheque, while the defendant's witnesses provided inconsistent statements regarding the alleged cash payment. The court highlighted the importance of documentary evidence, such as the dishonored cheque, in establishing the plaintiff's claim. The lack of convincing evidence from the defendant to substantiate the cash payment claim further strengthened the plaintiff's case.

Issue 4:
The court framed a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of evidence and findings by the lower courts. After thorough examination, the court found no misinterpretation or illegality in the judgments and decrees passed by the trial and appellate courts. The court emphasized the importance of not interfering with concurrent findings of fact unless shown to be perverse, citing relevant legal precedents to support its decision. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' judgments based on the correct appreciation of evidence and absence of perversity.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing the importance of evidence, presumption under the law, and the limited scope of interference in concurrent findings of fact.