9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Kurundwad of whose cheque the complainant has relied upon is merged with the Federal Bank in the year 2005-06 and as such, the possibility of the cheque of the Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad being issued in the year 2010 is not acceptable. It supports the defence taken by the accused that in the year 1993, he had issued the cheque in question by way of security and even though he has repaid the loan, misusing the said cheque, the complainant has chosen to file a false complaint against him. The entire material placed on record, the Trial Court has rightly held that the complainant has failed to establish that it is entitled to recover the amount under the cheque in question and it was issued by the accused towards legally recoverable debt a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lments and ultimately on 20.07.2010 admitting his liability, he issued cheque No. 312427 dated 20.07.2010 for a sum of ₹ 49,382/- drawn on Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Limited, Ganeshpur Branch, Belagavi (The Federal Bank Limited) and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned dishonoured with a shara account closed . The complainant has alleged that inspite of issue and receipt of legal notice, the accused has not chosen to repay the amount due under the cheque and without any alternative, he has filed the complaint. 5. The accused has taken up a specific defence that he has not at all borrowed loan during year 2001, more specifically on 18.09.2001 and he has never issued the cheque in question towards repayment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint and prays to allow the appeal. 8. The fact that the complainant is a registered cooperative society carrying on the business of accepting money deposits and advancing loan to its members and accused was one of the member of the complainant's society is not in dispute. The accused has also not disputed that the cheque in question was issued to him by his banker to the account maintained in the bank in question and he also does not dispute that it bears his signature. However, having regard to the specific defence taken by him that in the year 1993 he had availed loan from the complainant Society and the cheque in question was issued by way of security for the said loan, the heavy burden is on the complainant to prove tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumption, the onus shifts back on the complainant to lead further evidence and establish his case. When once the presumption arising under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebutted, the complainant cannot just sit back and based on the cheque claim that he has discharged the burden placed on him. 11. In the present case, it has come on record that the Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad of whose cheque the complainant has relied upon is merged with the Federal Bank in the year 2005-06 and as such, the possibility of the cheque of the Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad being issued in the year 2010 is not acceptable. It supports the defence taken by the accused that in the year 1993, he had issued the cheque in question by way of security and even though he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
