MOHANDAS KARANDOTE PARAMBATH Vs. JAMAL PAIKKATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree in a suit for money due under four cheques (Exts.A1 to A4), was decreed by the trial court. The defendant is in appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, both the plaintiff and the defendant were businessmen in Manama, Bahrain. The plaintiff invested money in the gold jewellery business of the defendant at Manama. In August, 2013 the plaintiff decided to withdraw his investment. It was agreed to settle the account when the parties reach India. In November 2013 when the parties were in India, the accounts were settled and Exts.A1 to A4 cheques were issued for Rs.48.00 lakhs towards full and final settlement. Exts.A1 to A2 cheques when presented, were dishonoured for the reason "account blocked" and "funds insufficient". Ext.A3 cheque was returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient". It is thereupon that the suit has been filed for realisation of Rs.48.00 lakhs with interest.

(3.) The defendant denied the plaint allegation that he was doing business at Manama. He contended that he did not have business. He was a gold smith and was an employee in a jewellery shop. The plaintiff never invested any amount with the defendant. The plaintiff was conducting chitty business without the sanction of the Government. The defendant had joined in such Kuries from the year 2006. Repayments of the chitty amounts were noted down by the plaintiff in a paper maintained by the defendant. The plaintiff used to obtain signed cheques of the defendant as security for repayment of the amounts due under the chitty transactions. Though the chitty accounts were closed and the defendant sought return of the cheques, the plaintiff informed that the same were destroyed. Such cheques have been misused by the plaintiff, is the contention. The defendant denied the issuance of the cheques and contended that they are not supported by consideration.