LexM/S. V.K. ENTERPRISES AND ANR. versus M/S. SHIVA STEELS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 9 S.C.R. 647 M/S. V.K. ENTERPRISES AND ANR. v. M/S. SHIVA STEELS (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25144 of 2009) AUGUST 04, 2010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0.37 - Object - Leave to defend- Grant of- Suit by respondent under 0.37, r.1 and A B 2 for recovery of cheque amount alleging that cheque issued C by petitioner in 2006 was dishonoured - Application filed by petitioner u/ 0.37, r.3, for leave to defend on the ground that the cheque was issued in 2000 and the matter was settled between the parties and that the year "2006" was interpolated in the cheque and presented in bank with dishonest intention· D - Dismissal of application by trial court as also by High Court · - Interference with - Held: Not called for - There was no sign of interpolation - A/legation of attempt to erase any of the writings or figures on the cheque was without any foundation - Ledger book produced by respondent proved that E transaction in respect of which the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner was settled - Defence raised by the petitioner did not make out any uiable issue and courts below dealt with the matter correctly - Summary procedure - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. F A suit was filed by the respondent under Order 37 Rule 1 and 2, CPC against the petitioner for recovery of money. The allegation in the suit was that the petitioner had purchased iron sheets on credit from the respondent and a sum of Rs.4.42 lacs became due and payable by G petitioner to the respondent. A cheque was issued on 11.10.2006 by the petitioner but on presentation by respondent, the cheque was dishonoured. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed an application 647 H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A under Order 37 Rule 3, CPC for seeking leave to defend. In the said application, the petitioner contended that a cheque was issued on 11th October, 2000, but the date of the cheque was, thereafter, interpolated and altered from 11.10.2000 to 11.10.2006, and presented to the bank B by the respondent. It was also stated therein that apart from the signature on the face of the cheque and the date mentioned therein, the rest of the cheque was blank and an attempt was made by the respondent to misuse the same with the intention of withdrawing or C misappropriating the amount, subsequently inserted in the cheque. It was ultimately stated in the application that the respondent had concocted the story and the bills placed on record by the respondent were also forged as the petitioner had neither purchased any material nor 0 counter-signed the last 4 bills as per the details provided. The trial Court dismissed the application for leave to defend. High Court upheld the order of trial court. The order of High Court was challenged in the instant special leave petition. E Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD: Order 37 was included in the Code of Civil Procedure in order to allow a person, who has a clear and undisputed claim in respect of any monetary dues, F to recover the dues quickly by a summary procedure instead of taking the long route of a regular suit. The Courts have consistently held that if the affidavit filed by the defendant discloses a triable issue that is at least plausible, leave should be granted, but when the defence raised, appears to be moonshine and sham, G unconditional leave to defend cannot be granted. What is required to be examined for grant of leave is whether the defence taken in the application under Order 37 Rule 3 C.P.C. makes out a case, which if established, would H V.K. ENTERPRISES AND ANR. v. SHIVA STEELS 649 be a plausible defence in a regular suit. In matters relating A to dishonour of cheques, the said principle becomes more relevant as the cheques are issued normally for liquidation of dues which are admitted. An examination of the photocopy of the cheque shows that the allegations made in the application filed by the petitioner B under Order 37, Rule 3 C.P.C. were without any foundation. There was no sign of any interpolation having been made on the cheque and in particular, the date thereof where the figure '10' in Roman numericals was not even inserted. There were no signs of attempt c to erase any of the writings or figures on the cheque to support the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner. The defence would have b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.