The court emphasized that a summary suit cannot be maintained on the basis of stale cheques and that material alteration of negotiable instruments, without consent, renders them void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. : This is an application under Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 thereof on behalf of the defendant for grant of leave to defend the summary suit instituted by the plaintiff. The case against the defendant is that the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff for conducting market research surveys in India with respect to the business interest of the defendant pertaining, inter alia, to the sale of Canadian Gold Coins. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant had engaged the services of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had carried out surveys, etc. and had rendered such services but the defendant had not paid for the same.

2. The learned Counsel for the defendant/applicant submitted that the entire plaint is based upon the four cheques which are mentioned in paragraph 14 of the plaint which amount to a sum of Rs. 1,34,32,500/-. The details of the cheques which were all drawn on ABN AMRO Bank are as under :

Cheque No. Date Amount (Rs.)

566847 12-09-2000 44,77,500

566848 12-09-2000 29,85,000

566849 Undated 29,85,000

566850 Undated 29,85,000

It is the plaintiff's case that these cheques were in acknowledgement of the defendant's liability as confirmed by the defendant vide its letter dated 12.9.2000.

3. Before I examine the merits and de-merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to point out certain background facts as mentioned in the plaint. Apparently, in July and August 1999 the defendant issued four cheques totalling Rs. 1,25,37,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. When these cheques were presented they were returned to the plaintiff by its bankers with the endorsement `Frozen Account'. It is pertinent to note that the defendant had during that period i.e., 1999 encountered various difficulties including prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and the Indian Penal Code. As a result of which, the defendant's accounts had been frozen. It is also to be noted that the defendant's account had been frozen by the Reserve Bank of India in connection with alleged Foreign Exchange Regulations Act violations. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the defendant that the defendant has been acquitted in all these proceedings although a Special Leave Petition is still pending before the Supreme Court. Some of the orders passed in the proceedings have also been placed by the defendant. It is in this background that the four cheques which were issued in July-August, 1999 could not be encashed by the plaintiff.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that upon the plaintiff approaching the defendant, the defendant issued another cheque dated 18.3.2000 for the entire amount of Rs. 1,25,37,000/- drawn on ABN AMRO Bank, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. However, as indicated in paragraph 13 of the plaint, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to present the cheque till the defendant's account was de-frozen. It is also stated in the said paragraph that the defendant had assured the plaintiff that the account would be de-frozen during the validity period of the cheque i.e., within six months. However, without obtaining the go ahead from the defendant, the plaintiff presented the cheque for encashment on 11.9.2000 and the same was dishonoured and returned with the endorsement `Account Blocked by R.B.I.' This led to the issuance of the third set of four cheques which have been detailed above. The total amount of these four cheques was Rs. 1,34,32,500/-. It was computed by adding a further sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the earlier sum of Rs. 1,25,37,000/- with some deductions on account of TDS and service charges. According to the plaintiff this was in clear acknowledgement of the defendant's liability for making payment of the said amount.

5. Upon examination of the details of the four cheques, it becomes apparent that two cheques were said to be dated 12.9.2000 and two cheques were undated. Paragraph 15 of the plaint reveals