Renu Aggarwal & Anr vs Baldev Raj Sachdeva

“S.No.,Cheque No.,Dated,Amount,Bank,

1.,861912,01.06.2008,"2,00,000/-",UBI,

2.,861911,01.10.2008,"2,00,000/-",UBI,

3.,861909,01.02.2009,"2,00,000/-",UBI,

4.,861910,01.6.2009,"14,70,000/",UBIâ€​,

S.No,Dated,Cheque No.,Amount,Bank,Name

1.,01.6.2009,861910,"14,70,000/-",UBI Azadpur,Baldev Raj Sachdeva

2.,01.6.2009,861912,"2,00,000/-",UBI Azadpur,Baldev Raj Sachdeva

3.,01.10.2008,861911,"2,00,000/-",UBI Azadpur,Baldev Raj Sachdeva

4.,01.02.2009,8619092,"2,00,000/-",UBI Azadpur,Baldev Raj Sachdeva

(f) Though the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors have accuse the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder of running an illegal chit fund to save tax,",,,,,

but the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors have themselves not stated how much amount in cash they paid towards chit fund and how much,,,,,

amount of chit fund they received and whether the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors have reflected all the said amounts in their Income Tax,,,,,

Returns.,,,,,

(g) The same also shows the mala fide nature of the plea in this regard and of the attempt to defeat the claim of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder,,,,,

and the liability of the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors on such pleas. The appellants/defendants/judgment debtors, being in the same boat, are",,,,,

not entitled to take such pleas.,,,,,

(h) As far as reliance by the counsel for the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors on G. Pankajakshi Amma supra is concerned, the plaintiff in a",,,,,

suit for recovery of money in that case had failed to establish the loan and the suit was based entirely on promissory notes. The plaintiff in the said suit,,,,,

however in his cross-examination admitted chit transaction between the parties and it was in the light of the said facts that the observations relied upon,,,,,

by the counsel for the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors came to be made. It is not so in the present case. Moreover in (i) Krishna P. Morajkar,,,,,

Vs. Joe Ferrao 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 862; (ii) Sheela Sharma Vs. Mahendra Pal 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4696; and, (iii) K. Arun Kumar Vs. R.",,,,,

Moorthy 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 1353 it has been held that the lapse if any by a claimant before the Court in filing of income tax returns cannot be a,,,,,

reason for denying the claim, as that is a concern of the Income Tax Authorities. The appellants/defendants/judgment debtors in the present case also",,,,,

are free to complain of the illegal transactions if any of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, to the concerned authorities but cannot wish away their",,,,,

liability to the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder as evident from the writing bearing admitted signatures and from the issuance of cheques.,,,,,

(i) Similarly as far as the plea of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder carrying on business of money lending without obtaining licence is concerned, it",,,,,

has been held in (i) Sitaram Shrawan Koshti Vs. Bajya Parnya Bhoi AIR 1941 Nag 177;,,,,,

(ii) Munagala Yadgiri Vs. Pittala Veeriah 1957 SCC OnLine AP 193; and, (iii) Tara Singh Vs.Nathu Ram AIR 1979 P&H 75 that before the",,,,,

provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act can be applied, it must be proved by the party seeking to apply and take advantage of the",,,,,

provisions that the plaintiff is a money lender. The appellants/defendants/judgment debtors have not made any averments in the applications for leave,,,,,

to defend, which if proved would establish the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder as a money lender. A bare plea does not suffice. Even otherwise, a",,,,,

loan as defined in Section 2(8) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act specifically excludes an advance made on the basis of a negotiable,,,,,

instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus the bar under Section 3 would not be attracted to a loan given on the basis of a,,,,,

negotiable instrument such as a cheque. Reference in this regard may be made to Virender Singh Vs. Deepak Bhatia 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1335,,,,,

(SLP Crl. No.5068/2013 preferred whereagainst has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12th July, 2013) and Deepak Bhatia Vs. Virender",,,,,

Singh 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12183.,,,,,

(j) Though the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors in the applications for leave to defend pleaded that they demanded the cheques given as,,,,,

security for chit instalments after paying all the chit instalments and the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder did not return the cheques, but again neither",,,,,

any dates thereof have been given nor is it the plea of the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors that the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors, on",,,,,

such refusal of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, took any steps whatsoever of stopping payment of the said cheques or issuing notice to the",,,,,

respondent/plaintiff/decree holder demanding return of the cheques or of making any complaint against the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder. Such,,,,,

plea has been taken only when faced with the monetary demand due thereunder and which action belies any faith therein.,,,,,

(k) Supreme Court, in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. supra has held that Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers supra was pronounced in the context",,,,,

of CPC as it stood prior to amendment thereof in the year 1976 and pursuant to the amendment the same is no longer good law. Applying the test laid,,,,,

down in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. supra, the appellants/defendants/judgment debtors, on the averments in the applications for leave to defend,",,,,,

have been rightly denied leave to defend by three Courts.,,,,,

(l) There is no contradiction in the demands or the version of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder, and the counsel for the",,,,,

appellants/defendants/judgment debtors has not even argued in this respect.,,,,,

There is no merit in the appeals. Dismissed.,,,,,