VIJAY NANDLAL BAJAJ Vs. GOVIND D PUNJABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has taken out the Summons for Judgment. An affidavit in support and affidavit in reply has been filed. The suit of the plaintiff is on the basis of three Bills of Exchange, dated 20th March, 1996 which are duly stamped. It is the case of the plaintiff that in order to discharge their liability the Defendants have issued a cheque on 16th August, 1996. This cheque was dishonoured with the remark insufficiency of funds. The plaintiff has attached with the plaint letter dated 20th September. 1996, Exhibit G. in which both the defendants have categorically stated that they acknowledge and admit having taken loan through the Plaintiff from several parties on Bill of Exchange at Bombay and payable at Mumbai. It is also stated that due to adverse financial position, the defendants have not been able to honour the commitments on due date since August, 1996. It is further stated that the defendants intend to discharge their liabilities by transferring the residential flat in favour of the third Parties. By letter dated 20th September, 1996, the defendants further requested the plaintiff not to present for encashment any of the cheques given by them to the plaintiff and several other parties against the Bills of Exchange. However, on 1st April, 1997, the defendants addressed a letter to the plaintiff and his father. Even in this letter, it is stated that "My client is the legally wedded wife of Mr.Govind D. Punjabi. It appears that you both as finance brokers, had arranged for certain loans for the Husband of my client against blank Hundies and his blank cheques. My client was also make to accept such Hundies by her Husband." Thereafter certain other reasons are set out for trying to wriggle out of the liability.

(2.) THE counsel for the defendants Mr.Samant has vehemently contended that there is in fact no loan transaction. In fact, the money had been given by the plaintiff's father to the defendant No.1 for purchasing certain shares from the promoters quota of the Via Media India Limited. He further submits that, bare look at the Bills of Exchange will show that they do not fulfil any of the requirements for the Bills of Exchange. He even disputes the signatures and the handwriting which is on the Bills of Exchange. So far as the cheque is concerned, the signature is denied. It is submitted that such a cheque was never, in fact, issued. In view of the above, the counsel submits that the defendants are entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.

(3.) KEEPING the aforesaid facts and circumstances in view, leave granted to the defendants to defend the suit conditionally on their depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the suit account within a period of 12 weeks from today. In the event, the aforesaid amount is deposited, the Prothonotary & Senior Master to invest the same in a fixed deposit account in a nationalised bank for a specified period of time to be decided by the Prothonotary & Senior Master. In the event, the aforesaid amount is not deposited, Summons for Judgment do stand made absolute and there shall be a decree in terms of the prayer clause as contained in paragraph 14 of the plaint. The original documents are taken on record.