Back
H. P. SANDESH
Annegowda S/O Sri Pachegowda @ Bommegowda – Appellant
Versus
M. T. Hanumegowda, S/O Sri Thibbe Gowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
This second appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed in R.A.No.29/2017 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.11/2016 and granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.03.2013 and agreed to repay the same with interest at 2% per month. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had executed an on demand promissory note for having availed the loan and agreed to repay whenever he demands. Inspite of demand, he did not pay the principal amount or the interest. Hence, he issued legal notice on 10.12.2015 and the same was served and untenable reply was given and hence he filed a suit for recovery of Rs.8,61,000/- with interest. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and admitted that he had borrowed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and at the time of borrowing, the plaintiff had collected three cheques drawn on SBM Bank, Mandya. It is also contended that the plaintiff had taken a blank stamp paper sign
The court established that the limitation period for recovery of loans starts from the date of the loan agreement, with the first day excluded in the computation.
A cheque issued for a time-barred debt does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to no offence being committed.
The execution of a Promissory Note is sufficiently proved by witness testimony, and non-production of accounts is not fatal to the plaintiff's case.
(1) Preliminary issue – When issues of both law and facts arise in same suit, Court may dispose suit by trying issue of law first.(2) Money suit – Issue as to whether claim of appellant is barred by ....
The limitation for a suit based on a dishonored cheque commences from the date of dishonor. Secondary evidence of a lost negotiable instrument can be admitted if the foundational requirements under S....
The acknowledgment of debt for limitation purposes must be explicit, written, and made before the expiration of the limitation period; mere disputes do not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit filed beyond the limitation period as per Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for seeking recovery of a loan where no time period....
Dishonour of cheque – Cheque itself is a promise to pay even if debt is barred by time.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
