9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Chadha (present petitioner) took from him a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.365512 dated 22.9.2011 (sic 22.11.2012) for a period of seven years; that the said cheque was duly encashed on 24.09.2011; that the accused in order to discharge their liability issued a cheque bearing No. 207372 dated 01.11.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Ludhiana; however, when the cheque was presented for encashment, the same got dishonoured with the remarks `insufficient funds' and that thereafter the accused were served with the legal notice, but to no avail. In the said complaint, the learned trial Magistrate passed an order on 27.02.2019, thereby summoning accused No.1 and 2 (i.e. the petitioner and his partnership firm) to face the tria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n interest for the period of about seven years and the said cheque was duly encashed in the account of accused on 24.09.2011. The accused No. 1 promised to return the said loan and now in order to return the loan amount, the accused No.2 with the active consent of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and for and on behalf of accused No.1, in order to return the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in order to discharge their existing enforceable legal liability towards the complainant has issued cheque bearing No. 207372 dated 01.11.2018 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) drawn on ICICI Bank, Ludhiana and fully assured that it will be duly encashed on its presentation with the bank and on this assurance only, the complainant has received and accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wledgment. An acknowledgment cannot be regarded as evidentiary of the debt but an acknowledgment that a person owes money to another, a specified person is good evidence of his owing money to another. The dishonoured cheque Ex.P1 cannot be treated as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, since the acknowledgment should be before the period of limitation is over and that it should be in writing. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant has been able to prove that Ex. P1 was in relation to a legally enforceable debt or liability in law as the same was admittedly issued after more than three years of the advancement of the alleged amount as loan. So, if the matter is viewed in the background of the observations rendered in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
