9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 and 20/01/2009. Thereafter on 19/03/2009 legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant seeking payment of the amounts due. The defendant issued four cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/each on 18/06/2009. These cheques were deposited and on 24/06/2009 the plaintiff was informed that all the four cheques stood dishonoured. It is on the aforesaid causes of action that the plaintiff filed suit on 11/01/2010 for recovery of the amounts due. 2. The defendant despite service did not appear in the proceedings and the suit proceeded exparte. The plaintiff examined its Director who deposed in terms of the plaint averments. The plaintiff was however not cross-examined. Thereafter on the directions of the learned Judge of the trial Court an additional affidavit along with accompanying documents was placed on record. The plaintiff's witness was again not cross-examined. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record found that out of the total thirteen invoices, the first invoice was dated 14/06/2006 and the last invoice was dated 15/12/2006. The suit as filed was on 11/01/2010. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chintaman Dhundir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Courts be adopted and it be held that the suit as filed was within jurisdiction. Reference was also made to the decision in Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar vs. Indranil Jairaj Damale 2007 (6) Mah LJ 419 as well as the decisions considered by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and it was urged that the suit as filed was well within limitation was liable to be decreed. In the alternate it was submitted that the four cheques which were issued on 20/06/2009 stood dishonoured and intimation in that regard was received on 24/06/2009. The suit having been filed on 11/01/2010, the trial Court ought to have decreed that part of the claim as acknowledged by the four cheques. This submission however was without prejudice to the principal submission that the suit was filed within limitation. 5. The following points arise for consideration : (A) Whether the suit for recovery is filed within limitation in the light of the fact that the four cheques acknowledging the defendant's liability were dishonoured ? (B) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief ? 6. As noted above the defendant has been duly served but has not chosen to contest the appeal. I have thus heard the learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of liability and same could not be regarded as part payment within the meaning of the provisions of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It was thus held that the suit having been filed beyond the period of limitation which commenced after 12/07/1939 was thus barred by limitation. The Court then considered the alternate claim as made based on the four cheques issued by the defendant and held that the plaintiff was entitled for the amounts mentioned in the cheques that were dishonoured as that claim was within limitation. The Court thus did not grant any relief as regards the principal claim but granted relief as regards the amount as shown under the dishonoured cheques. 9. The Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Hindustan Apparel Industries (supra) while considering a reference to answer the question as to whether payment by cheque which was subsequently dishonoured amounted to acknowledging a debt held that issuance of a cheque would prima facie amount to an admission of debt unless a contrary intention has been expressed by the person issuing the cheque. Subsequent dishonour of that cheque would not result in such admission/acknowledgment of liability to cease and to hold oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the earlier Full Bench by majority held that the decisions of the Bombay High Court given prior to 01/05/1960 would have the same binding force and effect as decisions of the Gujarat High Court. 11. From the aforesaid decisions, it thus becomes clear that the judgment of the Division Bench in Chintaman Dhundiraj (supra) operated as a binding precedent in the newly formed State of Gujarat. It is in that backdrop that the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hindustan Apparel Industries (supra) considered the reference questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench in Chintaman Dhundiraj (supra). Though said decision of the Division Bench now stands overruled in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hindustan Apparel Industries (supra) it would not mean that said decision has ceased to operate as law in so far as the areas falling under the High Court of Bombay as it now stands. Moreover, the judgment in Chintaman Dhundiraj (supra) arises from an appeal challenging the judgment of the trial Court at Pune. Admittedly, said area falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay. Though various other High Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
