ESJAYPEE IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAGDISH B AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the dismissal of the application in A.No.6092 of 2009 in C.S.No.879 of 2003 and declining to send the xerox copies of the Cheques for obtaining handwriting expert's opinion, appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.879 of 2003 on the file of this Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,80,583/- together with interest on Rs.21,50,000/-. Case of respondent/plaintiff is that plaintiff is carrying on business inter alia in financing. Appellant/1st Defendant Company availed the loan from the plaintiff on various dates (i) 2.1.2002 a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-; (ii) 22.5.2002 a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and (iii) 10.7.2002 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, totally Rs.21,50,000/-. THE said loan amounts were disbursed by the plaintiff by way of cheques in favour of the 1st defendant Company drawn on M/s.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Mandvi Branch, Mumbai. In consideration for the said loan availed, the 1st defendant Company, through its Directors, is said to have executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff concern on the dates of availment of loan agreeing to repay the aforesaid loan on demand from the plaintiff. Calling upon the 1st defendant to repay the loan amount with interest, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 6.6.2003 and 1st defendant Company has sent its reply notice dated 11.7.2003 denying borrowal interlinking the transaction with another concern - M/s.Ganesh International. THEreafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.26,80,583/- together with interest at 18% per annum.

(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Seethapathy submitted that the appellant was disputing the signature on his behalf and that even the rubber stamp of the appellant Company was not genuine and had been duplicated and the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the contention of the appellant and the application ought to have been allowed. It was further contended that the signatures of the appellant's Managing Director were forged and fabricated and the Managing Director offered to present himself before the Handwriting Expert of the Forensic Science Department and to sign in front of the expert so that the same could be compared with the disputed signatures and while so learned Judge erred in saying that the enclosures were only xerox copies and therefore the comparison could not be made.