VINAY MEHTA & ANR. Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 3.5.2010 by which the suit of the respondent -bank was decreed against the appellants/defendants. The appellant no.1 is the sole proprietor of appellant no.2. Appellant no.1 was the defendant no. 2 in the Trial Court and the appellant no. 2 was the defendant no. 1 in the Trial Court.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellants obtained a temporary overdraft facility from the respondent -bank, when the respondent -bank purchased a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/ - dated 20.9.2004 on the assurance that this cheque would be honoured on presentation. This cheque was, however, dishonoured and therefore to secure the interest of the respondent -bank, the appellant no.1 executed a demand promissory note in favour of the respondent -bank for an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/ -. The appellants thereafter repeatedly promised to make payments of the amount due, and in fact made certain payments, however, the net balance was not cleared and a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was dishonoured due to insufficient funds on 18.12.2004. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter sent a legal notice dated 2.3.2006, which having failed to yield the desired result, the subject suit was filed.

(3.) The Trial Court has disbelieved the stand/defence of the appellants and has decreed the suit by making reference to the exhibited documents. The relevant findings and conclusions of the Trial Court, and to which I agree, read as under: -