TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is liable to the respondent for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- - On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondent that there is a legally enforceable debt against the petitioner as clearly mentioned in the Memo of Compromise to pay the balance amount of ₹ 12,17,680/-. Though it is the case of the petitioner that she has discharged her legal liability towards the loan obtained by her husband, however, the memo of compromise entered into between the parties stares at the petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the said memo of compromise has been obtained from her by way of threat and coercion and the cheque had been misutilised by the respondent, however, those are points that have to be canvassed by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a sum of ₹ 13,50,000/- from the respondent herein. The said Vinod Lodha with an ulterior motive, to cheat the petitioner, had handed over the two blank cheques, given as security, to his son. When the petitioner along with her husband met the respondent and demanded the return of the two cheques, at that time, she was intimidated and forced to sign the Memo of Compromise dated 24.07.2014 prepared by the respondent and after getting her signature in the Memo of Compromise, he had returned the cheque bearing No. 578187 to the petitioner. In the said Memo of Compromise, the respondent induced the petitioner to pay a balance amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- within 9 months from the date of the said compromise. Thereafter the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the signature in the Memo of Compromise, the respondent had not returned the cheque bearing No. 578187 to the petitioner, but presented the same at the bank, which was returned. All of a sudden, the petitioner has received a legal notice from the respondent as if she issued a cheque for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- which was returned dishonoured, for which the petitioner has also sent reply notice dated 22.09.2017. 4. Further it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that proviso (a) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requires that the cheque to be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct in the present case is not in dispute that there was a Memo of Compromise between the parties dated 24.07.2014. It is the claim of the petitioner that by force and intimidation, the said Memo of Compromise was entered into between the parties. Further it is admitted by the petitioner that she had issued two cheques bearing No. 578187 and 578186, as security towards the vehicle loan obtained by the husband of the petitioner. However as per the Memo of Compromise, the petitioner is liable to the respondent for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/-. While being so, it is the claim of the petitioner that she did not issue any cheques towards her liability, as she paid all the dues towards the loan obtained from one Vinod Kumar Lodha. On the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of C.C. No. 1684/2018 as expeditiously as possible as per seniority of the case. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the trial Court and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner and respondent are directed to cooperate with the trial court for the early completion of trial. Further, taking into consideration the request as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, his appearance before the trial court is dispensed with except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s. 207 Cr.P.C., framing of charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|