RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common question of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are: Respondent instituted SC 15043/2004, 16234/03 and 16233/03 for recovery of money from the petitioner. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant borrowed Rs. 50,000/- on 30. 12. 2001, as hand loan agreeing to pay Rs. 1000/- until the principle sum was repaid. The defendant's bank cheques drawn on Union Bank of India, Shivajinagar branch, when bounched, impelled the plaintiff to institute the suits as well as proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT entered appearance and filed writtedn statement denying the plaint averments. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and exhibited 11 documents Exs. P-1 to p-11 while the defendant examined himself as D W-1 and another witness as DW-2 but did not exhibit any documents. The trial court, in the premises of the pleadings of the parties, framed points for consideration and on appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary decreed the suit with costs and current interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realization, by judgment and order dated: 24. 6. 2006.

( 4 ) SRI Rego, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below though tried the tree suits jointly, separate judgment and orders were made in each suit, Learned Counsel advances the following two contentions-

(i) that the trial court failed to appreciate that the loan transanction admittedly in excess of Rs. 20,000/- contrary to the procedure and mode of giving and taking loans, under Sec. 269-SS of the income Tax Act, 1961, for short the Act, being an illegal transaction disentitled the plaintiff to recover the suit claim;

(ii) that the petitioner having instituted OS 16318/03 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, mayo Hall, to direct the respondent herein, to return the cheques, subject matter of S. C. 15043/04; 16234 and 16233/2003, which was prior in point of time and had not attained a finality, the plaintiff, was disentitled to recover the suit claim.

( 5 ) SEC. 269-SS of the Act under chapter XX B provides for -

"requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion of tax'" and reads thus:-"269-SS. Mode of taking or accepting certain loans and deposits.- No person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984, take or accept from any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the depositor) any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if,-a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit; or b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregrate amount remaining unpaid; or c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregrate amount referred to in clause (b), is twenty thousand rupees or more: provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit taken or accepted from, or any loan or deposit taken or accepted by,-a) Government ; b) any banking company, post offie savings bank or cooperative bank; c) any corporation established by a Central State or Provincial Act; d) any Government company as defined in Section 617 of the companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); e) such other institution, association or body or class of institutions, associations or bodies which the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette: provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any loan or deposit where the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document