Bombay High Court Allows Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff in Commercial Suit for Dishonour of Cheque — Bank's Defence of Missing Signature on Reverse of Cheque Rejected as Not Triable Issue. The court held that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the signature on the face of the cheque is sufficient and the absence of signature on the reverse does not constitute a valid defence.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd, filed a Commercial Summary Suit against Canara Bank for recovery of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with interest. The plaintiff had furnished a bank guarantee issued by the defendant bank in favor of the Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Upon invocation of the guarantee, the bank issued a cheque dated 31st March 2020 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favor of the plaintiff. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation with the remark 'payment stopped by drawer'. The plaintiff filed the suit under Order XXXVII CPC. The defendant bank sought leave to defend, contending that the cheque was not signed on the reverse side and that the plaintiff had not complied with certain conditions. The court held that the defence was not triable and allowed the summons for judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Order XXXVII CPC - Triable Issue - The court considered whether a defence that the cheque lacked the drawer's signature on the reverse side constitutes a triable issue. Held that the absence of signature on the reverse of a cheque is not a valid defence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the signature on the face is sufficient. The bank's defence was held to be moonshine and not raising a triable issue. (Paras 1-22)

B) Banking Law - Bank Guarantee - Invocation - The plaintiff invoked a bank guarantee issued by the defendant bank. The bank dishonoured the cheque issued towards the guarantee amount. The court held that the bank's obligation under the guarantee is independent and must be honoured. (Paras 1-22)

C) Commercial Law - Summary Judgment - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The court, exercising its commercial division jurisdiction, allowed the summons for judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the principal amount with interest. (Paras 1-22)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the defendant bank has raised a triable issue entitling it to unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit for recovery of money based on dishonour of a cheque issued by the bank.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the Summons for Judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the principal amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit until payment, with costs.

Law Points

  • Order XXXVII CPC
  • Summary Suit
  • Triable Issue
  • Defence
  • Cheque Dishonour
  • Bank Guarantee
  • Signature on Reverse of Cheque
  • Commercial Court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (08) 62

Summons for Judgment No. 42 of 2021 in Commercial Summary Suit No. 234 of 2020

2021-08-11

2021:BHC-OS:2866

Mr Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate with Rohaan Cama, Vinodini Srinivasan, Rashna Khan & Poorva Garg i/b Mulla & Mulla and Craigie Blunt & Caroe for Plaintiff; Mr Prateek Seksaria with Nishit Druva, Prakash Shinde, Niyati Merchant & Astha Thakur i/b MDP & Partners for Defendant; Mr R Subramanian for Applicant Cethar Ltd

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Commercial Summary Suit for recovery of money based on dishonour of a cheque issued by the defendant bank.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with interest and costs.

Filing Reason

The defendant bank dishonoured a cheque issued by it towards the amount of a bank guarantee invoked by the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the defendant bank has raised a triable issue entitling it to unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC. Whether the absence of the drawer's signature on the reverse of a cheque constitutes a valid defence.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the bank issued a cheque which was dishonoured, and the defence of missing signature on reverse is not a triable issue. Defendant bank contended that the cheque was not signed on the reverse side and that the plaintiff had not complied with conditions of the guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend only if a triable issue is raised. The defence that a cheque lacks the drawer's signature on the reverse side is not a valid defence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the signature on the face is sufficient. Such a defence is moonshine and does not raise a triable issue.

Judgment Excerpts

The defence that the cheque was not signed on the reverse side is not a triable issue. The bank's obligation under the guarantee is independent and must be honoured.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed Commercial Summary Suit No. 234 of 2020 under Order XXXVII CPC. The defendant filed an appearance and sought leave to defend. The plaintiff took out Summons for Judgment No. 42 of 2021. The court heard the summons and allowed it, decreeing the suit.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XXXVII
  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
  • Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970:
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Amendment of Plaint in Suit for Declaration and Injunction — Liberal Approach to Amendment Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Upheld. The court held that the test of due diligence must be applied liberally, especially when...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Disposes of Application After Full Satisfaction of Settlement Amount in State Trading Corporation Case. All criminal and civil proceedings arising from settlement agreements quashed upon payment of Rs. 600 crores with interest.