UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. CHEMIE TEND
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE acceptor of four Bills of Exchange has been sued in this Original Application [O.A] for recovery of Rs. 16,27,043.52 with interest @ 17.09% p.a. from the date of filing the original application till full realisation.
(2.) The short case of the applicant is that since 1982, M/s. H.N. Dye Chem Industries (P) Ltd. enjoyed certain Credit Facilities including Usance Bills Discounting (UBD) facility from the applicant. The defendants accepted four bills drawn by the applicant's above named constituent. On the due dates, however, it did not make payment even after the Notary had called upon to do so. Therefore, this original application.
By written statement (Exh. 6), the defendant resisted the O.A. by stoutly denying to have signed and accepted the Bills of Exchange/Hundies. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is challenged without specifying whether the challenge is to territorial or subjectwise jurisdiction. The defendant has contended that photocopy of its letter head has been prepared and misused. The signatures are said to be forged. The Hundies are said to be without consideration since the defendant did not receive any benefit. The defendant has contended that it does not deal with Q-Acid which is shown in the invoice (accompanying the Bills of Exchange) to have been sold. The defendant however has admitted that it had dealings with H.N. Dye Chem (P) Ltd. It is said in that connection that the defendant's representative used to take rubber stamp to the office of H.N. Dye Chem for preparation of documents in respect of product purchased by it from H.N. Chem (P) Ltd. The contention is that H.N. Dye Chem (P) Ltd. has prepared false documents and forged signatures. The dismissal of the original application is sought for on said grounds.
(3.) BY order below Exh. 16 the defendant's application oral evidence was ordered to be recorded. At the defendant's behest, this Tribunal passed order on 28.1.2002 for examination of disputed signatures on the Bills of Exchange with the standard and admitted signatures by Mr. H.T. Gajjar, Hand Writing Expert on the Bank's panel. The opinion given by Mr. Gajjar favouring the defendant is on the record at Exh. 34. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Bank applied for sending the documents to other Hand Writing Expert. BY order dated 1.9.2003, the documents were sent to Additional Chief State Examiner of Documents (CID) Maharashtra State, Mumbai. Mr. J.K. Aher, Assistant State Examiner of Documents examined the signatures and gave opinion (Exh. 40) that the disputed standard signatures do not tally with the admitted signatures.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.