Dismissed

Madan Lal Narula and Anr. v. Satish Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2012RSA/1938/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal arising from a cheque dishonour case regarding a loan recovery, the High Court held that the lower courts' finding that the accused cheque was issued by the appellants was not perverse. Lacking corroboration for the plea of forgery, the appeal was dismissed for not raising any question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed as it does not raise any question of law.

Madan Lal Narula and Anr. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.1938 of 2011(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1938 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:27.04.2012

¶5

Madan Lal Narula & another

......Appellants

Vs.

Satish Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶14

CM No.5436-C of 2011:

¶15

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶16

CM No.5438-C of 2011:

¶17

This is an application seeking condonation of 841 days delay in re-filing the present second appeal.

¶18

In view of the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, prayer is allowed. Delay of 841 days in re-filing the present second appeal is condoned.

¶19

CM disposed of.

¶20

RSA No.1938 of 2011:

¶21

A suit for recovery of Rs.1 lac along with interest filed by the plaintiff-Satish Kumar was decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 06.03.2007 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved of the same, a civil appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by the

¶22

RSA No.1938 of 2011(O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 12.06.2008. Resultantly, the defendant/appellants are in second appeal before this Court.

¶25

Plaintiff-Satish Kumar instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,12,000/- i.e. Rs.1 lac as principal amount and Rs.12,000/- as interest at the rate of 2% per month from 10.11.2001 to 10.05.2002. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to the defendants, who had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month on the said amount. Towards discharging the debt, a cheque No.256695 dated 10.11.2001 from account No. CA-60 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Ambala Cantt had been issued by the defendants. The cheque had been presented for encashment but had been returned unpaid vide memo dated 26.11.2001 for the reasons 'Account closed'. Against such background, the suit had been filed.

¶26

The defendants contested the suit in terms of taking a plea that no amount had been borrowed and the alleged cheque was forged. It was also stated that no cheque book containing cheque No.256695 had been issued to the defendants.

¶27

Upon due appreciation of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of issuance of the cheque till the filing of the suit and further 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree on the principal amount and future interest at the rate of 6% till the realization of the decretal

¶28

RSA No.1938 of 2011(O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

amount was also awarded. The findings of the trial Court stands affirmed vide impugned judgment dated 12.06.2008 passed by the lower appellate Court.

¶31

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants has been heard at length.

¶32

The testimony of Tara Singh, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ambala Cantt, who had been examined by the plaintiff/respondent as PW-2 would be most crucial. Such witness, who had deposed on the basis of record had clearly stated that the cheque book containing cheque No.256695 had been issued by the Bank to the firm M/s Narula Oil and General Mills and to Madan Lal, being its partner. Documentary evidence in this regard in the nature of cheque book issue register, Ex.P-7 had been adduced on record. PW-2 also stated that cheque No.256695 had been returned and dishonoured as account bearing No. CA-60 had been closed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below in relation to the offending cheque having been issued by the defendant/appellants as also regarding the fact that account No. CA-60 relating to which the cheque had been issued was also their account.

¶33

Even though, the bald plea had been raised with regard to the cheque in question being forged and having not been signed by the defendant/appellants but no evidence whatsoever has been led towards corroborating such a plea.

¶34

RSA No.1938 of 2011(O&M) -4-

¶35

I find no patent infirmity or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, while decreeing the suit for recovery of the amount in question in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

¶36

For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal is dismissed as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.

¶37

The appeal is dismissed.

¶38

April 27, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)

¶39

harjeet

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Note: Whether to be reported? Yes/No

Madan Lal Narula and Anr. v. Satish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal Narula and Anr. v. Satish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Chand Jangra Vs Madhusudan Prasad & Ors.

Sant Kumar Vs Madhusudan Prasad & Ors.

Ashok Ahlawat & Ors. Vs Madhusudan Prasad & Ors.

Gurwinder Singh Alias Sahib Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karan Singh Sheoran Vs State of Haryana

Gurtej Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others