9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh misrepresentation thus making the loan agreement between the petitioner and respondent void under Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act. As per the loan agreement dated 8th January 2013 the loan amount was for ₹ 20,25,000/- whereas the cheque in question for an amount of ₹ 26,63,037/- was presented on 16th May 2013. The petitioner company has failed to explain how the liability increased from ₹ 20,25,000/- to ₹ 26,63,037/- within a period of five months. Therefore, the legal demand notice was not a valid notice as it was a demand for more than the actual loan amount and would not fasten any criminal liability on the respondent - Findings of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the respondent, based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt funds vide return memo dated 16th May 2013. Legal demand notice dated 6th June 2013 was sent to the respondent though registered post and AD. Despite the service of legal notice, the respondent failed to make the payment. Hence, the complaint. 3. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Petitioner company filed its evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 through Mr. Amit Chaudhary and relied upon copy of extracts of Board Resolution dated 22.12.2009 vide Ex.CW-1/A, original cheque vide Ex.CW- 1/B, original returning memo vide Ex.CW-1/C, legal demand notice vide Ex.CW-1/D, postal receipt and tracking reports vide Ex.CW-1/E and Ex.CW-1/F, copy of loan cum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 20,25,000/- that was collected from the borrowers but has failed to examine any such borrower to prove that they made the payment to the respondent for the repayment of loan. 8. The petitioner company has also heavily relied upon the loan agreement which was allegedly executed on 8th January 2013 whereas the stamp paper on which the loan agreement was executed was purchased on 6th March, 2010. The petitioner company failed to explain why the stamp papers for the loan agreement were purchased almost three years prior to the execution of loan documents. Moreover, the loan agreement is a void contract for want of consideration. It is evident that the consent of the respondent was obtained through misrepresentation thus making the loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
