VINAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. NARENDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE major contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that the petitioner-firm has been able to discharge the onus regarding the payment, when the payments were allegdly made to Sh. R. P. Sharma, an employee of the respondent firm. The counsel submitted that the factum that the payments have been made, stands proved from the account books of the firm and those account books have been regularly maintained.

(2.) THE submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally devoid of any merit. The disputed cheques for a consideration of Rs. 36,969/- were admittedly issued by the present petitioners. In these circumstances the onus was heavy upon the petitioner to prove by cogent and reliable evidence that he paid the amount by way of cheque. Mere entry in the account books cannont be taken as a conclusive proof for the discharge of the onus as the account books are self serving statements. It is also not proved that Shri R. P. Sharma had given any express or implied consent to receive the payment on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) IN these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Petition dismissed.