The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies when a person voluntarily hands over a cheque, and the Plaintiff must provide necessary details of consideration in the Plaint to be entitled to a decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Plaintiff has filed the captioned Summary Suit for a decree for the sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- based on a dishonoured cheque bearing No.292136 dated 3rd February 2021, drawn on TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. (the said cheque).

2. The facts set out in the Plaint are as follows: -

i. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both Advocates who met each other through a common acquaintance. The Defendant, it is stated, carries on the business of the land development, construction and real estate in the name and style of a sole proprietorship concern known as M/s. Sai Venkata Buildwell. It is stated that between the years 2006 to 2012, the Plaintiff had some dealings with the Defendant in respect of purchase of certain properties.

ii. It is stated that on 3rd February 2021, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff the said cheque for valuable consideration.

iii. On 27th April 2021, the Plaintiff deposited the said cheque with the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mazgaon, Mumbai branch for realization. At the time of deposit, it was noticed that the amount mentioned in figures on the said cheque was Rs.2,25,000/- instead of Rs.2,25,00,000/-. The amount in words was however correctly stated, however, crore was misspelt as ‘caror’.

iv. On 4th May, 2021, the Plaintiff received notice of dishonour from the bank. The reason for dishonour was stated as “55- Account blocked (situation covered in 21-25)”.

v. It was in these circumstances that the Plaintiff issued a statutory notice dated 19th May, 2021 under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 calling upon the Plaintiff to make payment of the said sum within 15 days. The Defendant vide his Advocate’s letter dated 27th May, 2021 responded to the statutory notice inter alia contending that the Plaintiff had never entered into any transaction with the Defendant nor had the Defendant issued any cheque towards discharge of any liability. The Plaintiff’s Advocate on 11th June, 2021 responded to the Defendant’s Advocate’s notice dated 27th May, 2021 essentially denying the contention raised therein and reiterating the stand taken in the Advocate’s Notice dated 27th May, 2021.

vi. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Plaintiff has filed the present Summary Suit seeking a decree for the sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/- based on the dishonour of the said cheque.

Submissions of Mr. Mogre, Plaintiff in person.

3. Mr. Mogre, at the very outset submitted that the Defendant had admitted his signature on the said cheque and had thus accepted his liability in respect of the same. He therefore submitted that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held viz.,

“13.The High Court in its order noted that in the course of the trial proceedings, the accused had admitted that the signature on the impugned cheque (No. 0886322 dated 8-2-2001) was indeed his own. Once this fact has been acknowledged, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability. This presumption is of a rebuttal nature and the onus is then o the accused to raise a probate defence. With regard to the present facts, the High Court found that the defence raised by the accused was not probate.”

4. Mr. Mogre thus submitted that the Defendant could not now dispute his liability to make payment to the Plaintiff in terms of the said cheque after having expressly admitted that he had duly signed the same. Learned counsel also submitted that the fact that there was a discrepancy in the amount mentioned in figures and words on the said cheque was of no consequence given the provisions of Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which provides as follows viz.

“18. Where amount is stated differently in figures