ASHOK COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES Vs. PAREKH ALUMINEX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Summary Suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 68,37,96,666/ - which comprises principal amount of Rs. 67 crores and interest of Rs. 1,37,96,666/ - calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. The suit is filed inter alia on the basis of dishonoured cheques. The plaintiffs had given short term loans aggregating to Rs. 67 crores for business purposes to the defendant, the amounts of which were duly credited to the defendant's account through RTGS. Towards repayment of these loans, the defendant drew cheques of varying sums aggregating to Rs. 67 crores in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant also by its letters (Exhibits D1 to D12 of the Plaint) acknowledged each of the loans advanced and promised to repay the amounts and also to honour the cheques. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation for "insufficient funds". The plaintiffs, therefore, seek to recover the amounts with interest as aforesaid. The plaintiffs rely upon both the dishonoured cheques as well as the letters, referred to above, for filing the suit as a Summary Suit.

(2.) THE defendant has filed a reply to the Summons for Judgment through one Manish Maru (who is said to be an authorised representative and to have filed the affidavit on the basis of the records available with the defendant). The following defences have been raised by the defendant in its reply:

(3.) AS for the defence of running account, the learned Counsel relied upon the statement of account between the parties as reflected in the Bank statement which shows certain debits and credits between the parties apart from the debits and credits concerning the short term loans advanced as claimed in the present suit. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there were other transactions between the parties, apart from the suit transactions, the defence has no merit. As far as the present suit is concerned, the same is based on dishonoured cheques and not on any antecedent liability based on any account. The consideration for such cheques can very well be an account stated between the parties or some items in a running account. Because such consideration is based on an account between the parties, the suit based on dishonoured cheques cannot be termed as a suit on the basis of such account. In other words, a running account may well form a consideration of a negotiable instrument such as a cheque but the suit is still a suit on a negotiable instrument which is supported by a lawful consideration. The defence of running account is thus even not a statable defence to a suit filed on dishonoured cheques.