O.A. No. 2840 of 2000. Case: Mashreq Bank PSC Vs Vissanji Sons and Company Ltd. and Anr.. Guwahati Debt Recovery Tribunals
| Case Number | O.A. No. 2840 of 2000 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sheetal Chaturvedi, Adv. i/b., M. Dhruva and Co. and For Respondents: Cyrus Ardesher, Adv., i/b., Madekar and Co. for Defendant No. 1 |
| Judges | K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer |
| Issue | Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 9(1); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 30, 76, 98 and 106 |
| Citation | I (2006) BC 41 |
| Judgement Date | June 09, 2005 |
| Court | Guwahati Debt Recovery Tribunals |
Judgment:
K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
-
The drawer (defendant No. 1) and the acceptor (defendant No. 2) of a bill of exchange for Rs. 7,48,800/- drawn on 25.9.1989 have been used in this application for recovery of Rs. 10,45,946.19 together with further interest @ 17.5% p.a. on the bill amount from the date of filing of the O.A. till payment and/or full realisation.
-
On the maturity date (27.11.1989) the acceptor (defendant No. 2) did not make the payment. The payment did not come forward even from the drawer (defendant No. 1) despite demand made through letters dated 6.7.1990. Therefore, this application is filed.
-
The 1st defendant vide written statement (Exh. 21) has at the outset made grievances about the applicant's failure to give inspection of the original documents. The defence is of bare denial. It is stated that the bill of exchange is not admissible in evidence. The contention is that primary liability of making payment of the bill is of the 2nd defendant. The dismissal of the O.A. is sought for on the said grounds.
-
The applicant made successive applications for permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that the originals are destroyed in the bomb blast. The second application (Exh. 32) was rejected on 11.8.2004 by this Tribunal by speaking order. Thereafter the applicant searched out the original documents and filed them in order to prove its case through Claim Affidavit of Mrs. Mabel D'Sa, Officer of the applicant (Exh. 44) who has put oath behind the applicant's case. The original documents (of which copies were annexed to the O.A.) are bill of exchange (Exh. 48), letters dated 6.7.1990 to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Exhs. 52 and 53) demanding payment and Advocate's notice dated 18.7.1990 (Exh. 54). Apart from the above, the applicant also relies on the letter of sanction dated 12.1.1989 to the 1st defendant (Exh. 46), letter dated 25.9.1989 by the 1st defendant to the applicant (Exh. 47), Invoice dated 31.7.1989 (Exh. 49), guarantee of defendant No. 1 (Exh. 50), Agreement for Bill Discounting Facility (Exh. 51), documents referred to by the applicant in the list of document (Exh. 4) relied upon with the O.A., but copies of which were not annexed to the O.A. In rebuttal, the 1st defendant has filed counter affidavit of Ms. Aarti Vissanji, (Exh. 57) and also filed below Exh. 58 the xerox copies of the applications submitted by the 1st defendant for inspection of the documents along with orders of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial