MAYA JAIN Vs. YASH CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No.10525/2014 (for leave to defend)

(2.) In the application filed for leave to defend the defendant has raised the following defences :-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff on the other hand submits that as per the plaint the receipt was executed in Delhi. He also states that the settled legal position is "debtor has to find the creditor". Hence, it is urged that this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction. Regarding the receipt of payment by the defendant, it is urged that the reliance of the defendant on his Bank Statements and Income Tax Returns is misplaced as payment has been made in cash. It is further stressed that the defendant had executed the receipt in question dated 20.01.2011. If, at a later stage, the defendant did not receive RTGS or any part of the payment as claimed, there is no communication sent by the defendant seeking cancellation of the receipt or pointing out to the plaintiff that despite having taken the receipt no payment has been received by the defendant. It is urged that this defence is only an afterthought to wriggle out of the liability. Reliance is also placed on section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also urged that under the Negotiable Instruments Act a cheque, raises a presumption of consideration paid.