9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, all the three defendants are liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 3 lacs jointly and severally. Also, as per Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, and which provision deals with quasi contract i.e. where there is no contract, it is provided that anyone who receives benefits of monies, in fact must repay back those monies. Hence, all the three defendants are liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 3 lacs with interest of 18% p.a jointly and severally. Trail Court's order upheld. - RFA NO. 390 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 1-5-2012 - VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. JUDGMENT 1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.1.2001 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff filed under Order 37 CPC on a dishonoured cheque by dismissing the leave to defend application. It was pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- was towards the repayment of a cash loan which was granted to the appellants/defendants. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that he gave a loan totalling to Rs. 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by making the following pertinent observations: "As has already been noticed hereinabove, defendant NO.2, Sh. Vipin Sehgal, has not denied that the cheque in question dated 10.12.94 was executed by him. The only explanation that he has given for his having issue the cheque is that the plaintiff held out a promise to defend No.1 that he would engage for it the services of some corporate consultant and obtain all clearances on its behalf to enable it to take out public issue of its shares in the market. The explanation given does not inspire confidence. The reasons are three fold. Firstly, there is nothing in writing between the parties about such dealing. Secondly, assuming the whole dealing between them was oral, it is difficult to believe that even after the plaintiff failed to arrange consultancy services the defendants made no protest to him either oral or in writing. There is no averment in the application for leave to defend that any protest whatsoever was made. Thirdly, if the defendants had really issued the cheque of Rs. 3 lacs for obtaining consultancy services, it is inconceivable that on the failure of the plaintiff to arrange for the same they accepted such la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shine and was rightly rejected by the Trial Court by dismissing the leave to defend application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contended that the respondent/plaintiff had filed another suit for recovery of Rs. 1,72,000/-, an aspect which is mentioned by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, however, though the cheque which was the subject matter of the present suit was already dishonoured when the other suit was filed, no mention was made in the said suit with respect to the present dishonoured cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- and therefore, it is urged that no amount was due under the dishonoured cheque. I frankly fail to understand this argument inasmuch as there is no requirement of law that if a suit is filed for recovery of an amount due on a dishonoured cheque, and which is thus based on a specific/particular cause of action, yet the respondent/plaintiff in the said suit must necessarily mention each and every other cause of action of other dishonoured cheques between the parties. Surely, this is not the legal position and therefore I do not find any legal force in argument as urged on behalf of the appellant. 8. The other issue which was urged on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cheque amount of Rs. 3 lacs jointly and severally." [Emphasis supplied] 9. Though in law liability of a shareholder is different from liability of a company, however, considering the facts of the present case where the Trial Court has held that the appellant no.1/defendant no.1-company is basically consisting only of the shareholders being appellants no. 2 and 3/defendants no. 2 and 3, I do not find that the conclusion of the Trial Court needs to be interfered with inasmuch as even in this appeal, the appellants/defendants have not filed any details of the shareholding of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1-company so as to dislodge the conclusion of the Trial Court made in this regard. 10. To the conclusion of the Trial Court of lifting of the corporate veil in the peculiar facts of the present case I may add that as per Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, and which provision deals with quasi contract i.e. where there is no contract, it is provided that anyone who receives benefits of monies, in fact must repay back those monies. Since the shareholding pattern of the appellant no.1/defendant no.1 has not even been filed before this Court, it is obvious that the cheque wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
