VIJAY PUNDLIKRAO MOHARE Vs. VISHAKHA DEEPAK BHOSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these appeals is "what will the effect of non-compliance of some of the terms on the liability created as per four cheques. The connected issues are whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been rebutted and in order to refute the accused's grievance of non-compliance of the terms of the agreement, whether the complainant is justified in simply relying upon contents of the agreement without giving oral evidence.

(2.) Four cheques were issued after execution of Agreement to Sale, dated 04/10/2005 [Exh.57]. They were issued by the accused/respondent in favour of the appellant/complainant. The parties will be referred to as per their original status. The complainant filed one case bearing S.C.C. No.16740/2006 for non-payment towards three cheques. S.C.C. No.77/2006 was filed in respect of non-payment of one cheque. The grievance of the accused is "the complainant has not cooperated in obtaining N.O.C. from the Town Planning Department. Even accused sought the complainant's cooperation vide letter, dated 24/06/2006 [Exh.60]. Whereas, complainant contend that entire responsibility is of accused.

(3.) The complainant has deposited three cheques for realization prior to receipt of the said letter. Whereas, admittedly, the fourth cheque was deposited after receipt of the said letter. All the four cheques were dishonoured for the reason "stopped payment by the drawer". Vide letter dated 07/02/2006, the accused informed to his banker to stop the payment. For the first three cheques, the complainant issued a notice, dated 25/07/2006 [Exh.45]. The accused denied the liability and informed the complainant vide reply, dated 03/08/2006 [Exh.47]. As there was a failure to make the payment, the complainant filed S.C.C. No.16740/2006 for three cheques. The forth cheque was deposited and the outcome was the same i.e. it was dishonoured. There was a demand to pay as per the notice dated 21/09/2006 [Exh.28]. The accused denied the liability vide reply dated 05/10/2006 [Exh.31], as there was a failure to pay, S.C.C. No.77/2006 was filed.