High Court’s Verdict in the Case of Loan Repayment Dispute

In a recent landmark case concerning a loan repayment dispute, the High Court delivered a crucial verdict that has far-reaching implications. The legal heirs were allowed to prosecute this appeal, and the court had to carefully consider various aspects of the case. Stay tuned to discover the key details and insights from this significant judgment by the Supreme Court of India.


  • The original appellant had borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant.
  • The repayment was supposed to be made through a cheque issued on 18.11.2000 drawn on State Bank of Mysore.
  • The legal heirs were allowed to prosecute this appeal.

Also Read: Enforcement of Foreign Award: Case of Oscar Investments Limited and RHC Holding Private Limited


  • The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s judgment based on several reasons.
  • The original appellant did not testify in court to confirm he had not signed the cheque.
  • The handwriting expert’s opinion was deemed inconclusive by the High Court.
  • Failure of the original appellant to provide evidence of sending a reply to the complainant’s notice.
  • The Trial Court dismissed the complaint based on the handwriting expert’s opinion.
  • The accused claimed not to have signed the cheque.
  • The High Court’s decision was criticized for possibly overstepping the boundaries of an Appellate Court in criminal cases.
  • Concerns about how the cheque leaves ended up with the complainant were raised.
  • The burden of proof was on the original 3 appellant to prove his part of the case.
  • The High Court correctly held the original appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Act.

Also Read: Case of Eligibility for Disability Pension: Air Force Officer’s Retirement


  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The amount deposited by the original appellant along with any accrued interest can be withdrawn by the complainant

Also Read: Judicial Integrity Upheld: High Court Disciplinary Proceedings Quashed


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000664-000664 / 2012

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *