Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Summoning Evidence Opportunity Must be Granted Even in Civil-Natured Criminal Cases  ||  J&K&L HC: UAPA Trials Cannot Linger and Must Proceed With Day-To-Day Hearing under NIA Act  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Delhi HC: Private Schools May Increase Fees Without Prior Approval if Declared Before Session Begins  ||  Supreme Court: Omission of Accused in Inquest Report Alone Does Not Indicate Innocence    

Vinergy International Pvt. Ltd. v. Dimple Dineshbhai Shah - (High Court of Bombay) (07 Dec 2016)

Failure to cross examine witness on material portions of deposition must be taken as being truthful and credible

MANU/MH/2621/2016

Civil

Plaintiff had filed present suit for a summary decree in sum of Rs.1,49,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. on amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/¬ from date of filing of suit till payment/realization. It is the case of Plaintiff that, as there was a large amount of Rs.1,35,68,15/¬ due and payable by Umesh Enterprises to Plaintiff, Plaintiff met Defendant and Umesh Shah. During meeting, Defendant guaranteed payments to be made by Umesh Shah Enterprises and in furtherance thereto gave a cheque for Rs.1 crore as security. As said Umesh Enterprises did not pay balance amount and since, Defendant had guaranteed repayment of dues of Umesh Enterprises and its customers, Plaintiff presented cheque for Rs.1 crore issued by Defendant. Cheque was dishonoured on presentation.

Defendant did not cross¬-examine PW¬1 on invoices produced. There is no case put to witness “denying supply”, “disputing price”, “disputing quantity”, “disputing quality” etc. Furthermore, Defendant calls upon Plaintiff to produce a statement showing details of invoices relating to Umesh Enterprises and details of invoices relating to customers of Umesh Enterprises. This statement was received in evidence.

By not putting any of its affirmative case namely as regards “misappropriation of cheque” and “ allegation of non supply of goods” Defendant must be deemed to have accepted case of the plaintiff in its entirety. Failure to cross examine a witness on material portions of his deposition must be taken as being truthful and credible.

Plaintiff has also produced circumstantial evidence, which supports and corroborates its case. Post dating of a cheque is a matter that quite easily fits in with case of Plaintiff that, defendant stood security for the supplies to be made by the plaintiff to M/s.Umesh Enterprises and its customers. It is extremely pertinent to note that PW-1 was never asked to explain this so called anomaly. There is no cross-¬examination of any nature on documents produced. Defendant therefore, must be considered to have accepted correctness of contents of documents. High Court decreed the suit in sum of Rs.1 crore together with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from date of suit until payment/realization.

Tags : AGREEMENT   DUES PAYMENT   DISHONOUR  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved