Corporate Law Daily
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top Corporate Law stories reported at taxmann.com.
In the instant case, the defendant, a director of Private Limited Company approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for their business purpose agreeing to repay the loan amount together with interest thereupon at the rate of Rs. 1.90 per cent per month.
It was the case of the plaintiff that towards the repayment of the said loan amount, the defendants had repaid a sum of Rs. 2 lakh each on 5 dates, in all a total sum of Rs. 10 lakhs. The defendants had also paid a sum of Rs. 1.98 lakh towards interest in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendants failed to pay the balance principal amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and interest thereupon.
Appellant further submitted that respondents had issued three cheques, towards repayment, however, those cheques were dishonoured when presented for realisation.
The Appellant made several requests for repayment of the loan amount, but since respondents did not repay the loan amount, the appellant instituted a suit claiming a total sum of Rs. 14.12 lakhs.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant. It was found that though the appellant had sufficient materials, more particularly, documentary proof like his bank passbook, statement of account, register, etc., to show the transaction of the loan with the defendants, admittedly, he had not produced any one of them. Therefore, an adverse inference could be drawn to affect that contention of the appellant that he had given a loan to the respondent through a cheque, did not appear to be true.
Appellant claimed that respondents had issued three cheques, towards loan repayment, however, there was no evidence to show that cheques were presented for realization and same had been dishonoured by the drawee bank, it could not be held that appellant as a payee in cheque had charged drawer, as per section 72 and consequently, since he had not presented the cheque, it could not be held that respondents had acknowledged debt as such extending limitation under section 18 of Limitation Act
On appeal, the High Court held that three cheques did not go to show that limitation had been extended, then, even according to the appellant, alleged loan being of date 19-4-2013 and admittedly date of filing original suit in trial Court being 22-3-2017, which was beyond three years from the date of arrival of the cause of action, thus, the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from Taxmann.com
Recommended by LinkedIn
Register Now for Taxmann’s Classes | [Virtual] Workshop on ‘Reverse Charge’ under GST
1 Day | 1 Session | 1 Speaker | 180 Minutes
📅 23rd July 2022 | 🕒 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM (IST)
Fees: ₹ 795/- + GST @18% Extra
Register Now! (Limited Slots Available): https://taxmann.social/swgeR
Faculty:
• S.S. Gupta – Member of ICAI, ICWA & ICS
S.S. Gupta is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India and the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.
Key Learnings:
✔️ Concept of Reverse Charge Mechanism under GST
✔️ Forward Charge vs Reverse Charge
✔️ Notified Goods & Services for Reverse Charge
✔️ Interpretational Issues relating to Reverse Charge Transactions
✔️ Implications under General Provisions (Invoice, Time of Supply, etc.)
✔️ How to Prepare Submissions for Litigations on Issues relating to Reverse Charge?