9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to the respondent by way of Ex.D.1/Cheque dated 29.12.2006, which is also evidenced by Ex.D.2/Bank statement of the Complainant. The respondent by examining the witnesses D.W.1/Manoharan, D.W.2/Sengutuvan and the respondent himself deposing as D.W.3 and marking Ex.D.1 to Ex.D6 has rebutted the presumption. So, now the onus is shifted to the petitioner to prove that the cheque has been issued for discharging the legally subsisting liability. Even though the petitioner herein in his complaint has stated that the respondent had borrowed the money in the month of October 2006, he has not filed any scrap of papers to prove that he had lent the amount to the respondent and his capacity to lend such amount. Further, the petitioner who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner on 29.12.2006 and when the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was repaid to the petitioner, he demanded interest and when the respondent refused to pay the interest as demanded by the petitioner, the petitioner filled up the Ex.P.1/Cheque and filed the complaint, which is against the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for granting leave to prefer an appeal. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the typed set of papers. 5. The petitioner herein as a complainant filed a complaint stating that during the month of October 2006, the respondent herein had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and agreed to repay the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s D.W.3 and marking Ex.D.1 to Ex.D6 has rebutted the presumption. So, now the onus is shifted to the petitioner to prove that the cheque has been issued for discharging the legally subsisting liability. 7. Even though the petitioner herein in his complaint has stated that the respondent had borrowed the money in the month of October 2006, he has not filed any scrap of papers to prove that he had lent the amount to the respondent and his capacity to lend such amount. Further, the petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 had deposed in his cross-examination that he is an Income Tax assessee, however he has not mentioned the amount alleged to have lent to the respondent in his IT returns. 8. Considering all the above aspects, the Trial Court has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
