K. SARASWATHY ALIAS K. KALPANA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus P.S.S. SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 01-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. SARASWATHY ALIAS K. KALPANA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
.J.. 
v . 
P.S.S. SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR 
MAY 1, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK CJ, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI 
B 
AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
~ 
Practice and Procedure: Court order providing for deposit of 
• 
amount-Payment by cheque whether valid. 
Original Side Rules-Madras High Court: Order XXXI Rules c 
1-6--Depositing Money into Court-Payment of money by cheque-
Whether due compliance. 
)'' 
The appellant filed a civil suit in the High Court for specific 
performance of a contract to sell the snit property by the respondents to 
her. The High Conrt held the appellant liable to discharge the mortgage 
D 
and directed her to deposit in Court a sum of Rs.3.5 lakbs with interest 
for the purpose. The appellant paid the amount direct to the mortgagee, 
which the High Court refused to accept as due compliance with its 
decree. 
~ 
The appellant preferred appeals to this Court, which were dis-
E 
posed of on 29th November, 1979 with the direction that the appellant 
was to deposit within six months from the date of the order, the entire 
sum of Rs.3.15 lakhs together with interest . 
• 
Purporting to comply with the aforesaid order of this Court, 
appellant deposited a sum of Rs.2,42,822.19 on 11 April, 1980 and tiled 
F 
'?<, 
two Civil Misc. Petitions in the High Court for a declaration that 
the payment was in compliance with the order of this Court and 
-~ 
claimed as set off of the amount of Rs.5,96,687 .19 paid by her earlier to 
the South Indian Bank, which she was entitled to recover from the 
respondent. 
G 
The time limit fixed for fulfilling the two conditions set out in this 
~ 
Court's order dated 29th November, 1979 having fallen on 29th May, 
1980 and the High Court not having passed orders on the appellant's 
two CMP's the appellant paid into the High Court a sum of Rs.6.02 
lakhs on 29th May, 1980 by cheque purporting to comply with the first 
condition of this Court's order. 
H 
819 
ti'--·
A 
B 
c 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
The High Court dismissed the appellant's CMP and refused to 
grant the declaration that the appellant had complied with the order of 
this Court dated 29th November, 1979, on the ground that the appellant 
was bound to comply with the Original Side Roles of the High Court 
which prescribed the procedure to he followed in depositing money into 
Court particularly Order XXXI Rules 1 to 6 which aimed at securing 
the deposit of the money in the Reserve Bank of India to the credit of a 
particular proceeding, on or before the specified date. 
In the appeal to this Court, on the question; whether payment 
made by the appellant on 29th May, 1980 by cheque of the amount of 
Rs.6.02 lakhs together with the amount deposited earlier on 11th May, 
1980 was in due compliance with this Court's order dated 29th 
November, 1979. 
Allowing the Appeal and setting aside the order of the High 
Court, this Court 
D 
HELD: 1. Payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present-
day life, whether commercial or private, and unless it is specifically 
mentioned that payment must be in cash there is no reason why pay-
ment by cheque should not be taken to be due payment if the cheque is 
subsequently encashed in the ordinary course. [823D-E] 
E 
In the instant case, there is nothing in the order of this Court 
providing that the deposit by the appellant was to he in cash. The terms 
of the order dated November 29, 1979 are conclusive in this respect and 
it is the intent of that order which will determine whether payment by 
cheque within the period stipulated in that order was excluded as a 
mode in satisfaction of the terms of that order. The time for payment of 
F 
governed hy the order of this Court. [823E-F] 
-
• 
2. Payment on the cheque being honoured and encashed relates 
~ 
hack to the date of the receipt of the cheque, and in law the date of 
payment is the date of delivery of the cheque. [823F] 
G 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay v. 
Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd. Ogale Wadi, A.LR. 1954 S.C. 429 
referred to. 
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the cheque was 
not honoured in due course and that the Bank had at any time declined 
H to honour it for want offunds in the ordinary cause. [823G] 
\tr, -
-
• 
SARASWATHY v. SOMASUNDARAM CHETTIAR [PATHAK, CJ.] 821 
.), 
3. The conditions set forth in the order of this Court dated 29th 
A 
)( 
November, 1979 have been complied with by the appellant substantially 
and s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.