Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society vs Gayatri Gupta

Neena Bansal Krishna, J

Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant i.e. Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society against Judgment and Decree dated 07.06.2022 passed by learned ADJ-02, Delhi, i whereby Leave to Defend Application filed by Defendant No.3 / Appellant was dismissed and the Suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent for  recovery  of Rs.17,81,531/-  along  with  interest  @  18%  per annum, has been decreed.

Plaintiff / Respondent had filed Suit bearing No. CS DJ ADJ No. 220/2020 under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.17,81,531/- along with pendente lite and future interest.

Brief  facts  as  narrated  therein  were  that  Defendant  No.1  /  Presidium Dwarka Sector-22 School was headed by its Chairperson, Mrs. Sudha Gupta.  Defendant  No.2  /  Ms.  Neerja  Chawla, was  Regional  Head  Business Development and Authorised Signatory of Defendant No.1/School, who was operating from the premises of Mother’s Pride School, located at 11/77, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Defendant No.3 / Presidium Educational & Charitable  Trust  was  controlling  the  operations  of  Defendant  No.1/School. Defendant No.4 / Presidium Educational Institution Private Limited, was private limited Company, had been controlling the overall operations of other Defendants. Its Director Mrs. Raj Rani Gupta, was the mother-in-law of Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Chairperson of Defendant No.1 / School.

It was further asserted that Defendant Nos.1 and 4 were known to the husband of the Plaintiff, for several years. In the month of May, 2017, Defendant Nos.1 and 4 sought a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for the infrastructural development of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka and assured that they would pay an interest @ 13% per annum payable monthly. They also assured that the amount would be returned within a year.

Believing the assurance of the Defendants and considering the amicable relationship, Plaintiff lent a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- through cheque dated 02.05.2017, which was encashed on 06.05.2017. Defendant No.2 / Neerja Chawla, on the instructions of Presidium School and Presidium Educational  Institution  Private  Limited  and  being  the  Authorized  Signatory of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, issued a Demand Promissory Note and Receipt of consideration of Promissory Note, both dated 02.05.2017, under  her  signatures  and  the  Seal  of  the  School.  The  principal  amount  was returned by Defendant No.3 vide three cheques dated 07.04.2018 and 07.05.2018  towards  principal  and  interest,  in  the  sum  of  Rs.14,625/-  each. All the three cheques, on presentations, were dishonoured for the reasons“drawer’s signatures not as per mandate” or “drawer’s signatures differ”.

The Plaintiff approached the Defendants for return of the loan amount,  who  assured that they would be  able to  arrange  the  funds  in  a few month / weeks. The Plaintiff again made several requests and made personal visits, despite which loan amount was not deposited. Therefore, Plaintiff filed Suit for recovery of a principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the interest amount, totalling to Rs.17,81,531/-.

Leave  to Defend Application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC was filed on behalf of Defendant No.3 / Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust,  wherein  it  was  asserted  that  Plaintiff  has  impleaded  Defendant  No.3 as“Presidium  Educational  &  Charitable  Trust;  Lala  Sher  Singh  Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.” However, Presidium Educational & Charitable  Trust  is  a trust,  registered under  the  Trust  Act,  wherein the  Lala Sher  Singh  Charitable Jeevan  Vigyan  Trust  Society  is  a  Society  registered under  the  Societies  Registration  Act,  1860.  Both  are  separate  legal  entities and  could  not  have  been  clubbed  together  as  one  entity. There  is  no  legal entity in the name, arrayed as Defendant No.3.

The Plaintiff herself is not clear whether Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, is one or separate. The Suit is therefore, bad for misjoinder of parties.

It  is  further  asserted  that  as  per  the Plaint  and  the  Memo  of  Parties, alleged amount was paid to Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, at the instance  of  Defendant  No.4  /  the  Presidium  Educational  Institution  Private Limited and the amount was used by the Presidium Group. Even if, Defendant  No.4  gave  a TDS  Certificate  for  the  interest  for  Financial  Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, it would not make the  Suit maintainable against answering Defendant No.3.

As per the case of the Plaintiff herself, Defendant No.1 is a Public School, controlled  and  operated  by Defendant  No.3, which  is  a Charitable Trust. The Applicant is a Registered Society, under the Societies Act, but is not controlling or operating the school. This fact is evident from the impleadment of Defendant No.3 through its Chairman / Trustee Sh. G. S. Matharoo. The Suit is not maintainable against the answering Defendant.

Further, the Plaintiff in her Plaint, had stated that Defendant No.4 is a Company, which is controlling the overall operations of the Defendant; thereby Applicant Society is not responsible for the aforesaid acts.

Defendant No.2/ Mrs. Neerja Chawla was not an employee of the Applicant Society and has been operating from the premises of Mother’s Pride,  West Punjabi  Bagh.  She is  not an  Authorised Representative of the Applicant

Likewise, as per the Plaintiff, Defendant No.4, owned and run various schools under the brand name of Presidium, having many schools in Dwarka.  The  alleged  Promissory  Note  and  Receipt  purported  to  have  been executed by Defendant No. 2, does not prove that the Receipt was issued on behalf of Presidium School, Dwarka, or that she was  authorised to issue the Receipt. There was no contract for payment of interest; the Plaintiff has claimed additional amount which is beyond the scope of Order XXXVII and the Suit is not maintainable.

The returns of the cheques and subsequent Demand Notice, do not disclose any  cause of action to file the present Suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled for Leave to Defend the Suit.

It  is  further  asserted  that  there  is  no  cause  of  action  disclosed  in  the Plaint and the Suit is not maintainable. It is claimed that substantial defences have been raised and answering Defendant No.3 is entitled to Leave to Defend the present Suit.

The Plaintiff, in her Reply to the Leave to Defend Application, has explained that the refund cheque dated 30.04.2018 for Rs.15,00,000/- and two cheques towards interest, were duly issued by the Defendant / Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan  Trust  Society).  Therefore, the said  Trust was necessary party to the Suit and it is denied that the Suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties.

It is further submitted that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, had deducted TDS on interest payments for Financial Year 2017-18; which is evident from the Plaintiff’s Income-Tax Form 26AS issued to her for A.Y. 2018-19. Further, even though Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society deducted TDS on the interest cheques for Rs.14,625/- each, but the TDS amounts have not been deposited with the Income-Tax Authorities, which is evident from the Income-Tax Form 26AS of the Plaintiff, for the A.Y. 2019-20.

It  is vehemently denied that  the  Suit  is not  maintainable  against  Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.

Furthermore, it is denied that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society is not controlling or operating Presidium School, Dwarka. The School Affiliation Certificate issued by the CBSE clearly stated that the school is managed by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. Therefore, the  Suit is maintainable against Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, under the Chairmanship of Mr. G. S. Matharoo, which is liable to refund the loan amount,

The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendant has concealed its relationships with former Defendant No.4 / Presidium Educational Institution Private Ltd. The Demand Promissory Note dated 02.05.2017 was issued by Mrs. Neerja Chawla (though wrongly stated as Mrs. Neerja Bhatia), authorized signatory of the Presidium School.

Likewise, Receipt of consideration of Promissory Note was issued on behalf of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, managed and run by the Defendant  Society. It was denied that  there was  no contract for payment of interest or that the Suit under Order XXXVII, was not maintainable.

It is therefore, submitted that there was no ground for grant of Leave to Defend, which  was liable to be dismissed and the  Suit of the Plaintiff be Decreed.

Learned District Judge, during the trial, in the Order dated 20.08.2020,  observed  that averments  in  the  Plaint  were  made  against Mrs. Neerja Chawla, employee of the Society, who was signatory of the Promissory Note and Receipt, issued to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant No.2 / School.

The Service Report  on the Summons dated 08.10.2019 was that  Mrs. Neerja Chawla, the employee, had already left the employment of the school. Defendant No.4 / Presidium School and Presidium Educational Institution  Private  Limited  had  no  locus  in  the  present  dispute  between  the Society  and  the  Plaintiff,  which  is  money  claim.  It  was  also  observed  that Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Chairperson of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, had also been impleaded as Defendant No.1.

It was observed that the arraying of  Defendant  Nos.1, 2 and 4 by the Plaintiff  as  parties  to  the  Suit  seemed  as  a  desperate  attempt  on  the  part  of the  Plaintiff  to  exert  pressure  and  cause  grave  hardship  to  the Defendants, when in fact the claim for money was only against the Society of Defendant No.3. There was no logic understandable in impleading the Society through its  President  Mr.  G.  S.  Matharoo,  to  whom  the  service  of  Summons  under Order XXXVII of CPC had been affected.

No purpose would be served in impleading the Chairman of the Society as an independent party and also the employee, who has left employment. Neither Defendant No.2 nor Defendant No.4 was held to be necessary  party  to  the  Suit.  Thus, names of  Defendant  Nos.1, 2 and  4 were deleted under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

The appearance under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) CPC on behalf of the Society, i.e. Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust, filed on 11.10.2019, was accepted and the summons for Judgement, were directed to be served upon Defendant No.3.

Learned District Judge, in the impugned Order dated 07.06.2022, observed that the liability of payment of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest, had not been denied and that there was no whisper in this regard. The entire emphasis of the Applicant was only on one fact that the Applicant Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society is a separate entity and has nothing to do  with  the  present case,  as the liability was  either of  Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka or Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust.

Admittedly,  Lala  Sher  Singh  Memorial  Jeevan  Vigyan  Trust  Society has not annexed any document to substantiate its claim that is a separate legal entity and it has nothing to do with either Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka or Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust. Lala Sher Singh memorial  along  with  the  Application  for  appearance  filed  before  the  Court in compliance of Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) of CPC, mentioned the following address for service of summons for Judgment:-

“Prudence School (earlier Presidium School), through its Manager,

Plot No.18, Dwarka Sector-22

(opposite Green Valley Apartment)

New Delhi-110077.”

From the above address given by the Applicant, it became abundantly clear that the Applicant i.e., Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society is running Prudence School, which is earlier named as Presidium School from Plot No.18, Sector 22, Dwarka.

Furthermore, in the cheque, it has been mentioned that it has been issued on behalf of Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society). The nomenclature A-U-O means “A Unit Of”. Further, reference was made to the Form 26AS, whereby the interest TDS certificate was given by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. Further, affiliation issued by CBSE also reflected  that  the School was run  by  the Trust /  Society  of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, of which Sh. G. S. Matharoo was  the  Chairman.  Even  the  Treasurer  of  Prudence  School,  namely  Akash Gupta, is the President of Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust.

It was held that it was only for this reason that the name of Presidium School, Sector 22 Dwarka, Presidium  Educational & Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society had been used interchangeably in various documents. Most importantly, the Plaintiff had arrayed, by way of  abundant caution  and to avoid any technicalities, all the entities as party to the present Suit. Even the Presidium Educational Institution Pvt. Ltd. had been arrayed as Defendant No.4, as in the Promissory Note the Word "Company" was used.

It was further observed that even if it is accepted that Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan  Trust  Society  are  separate  entities,  the  Applicant  /  Defendant  No.3 cannot escape the truth that Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka was in fact, run by it. The nomenclature "Presidium" only represents the brand name under which the Applicant / Defendant No.3 is running the school and it  has  no  separate  legal  identity.  It  is  also  only  for  this  reason,  the  name  of Applicant / Defendant No. 3 was mentioned in the brackets, on the three cheques issued to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, Defendant No.3 itself gave the address for service of summons for Judgment of Prudence School, Sector 22, Dwarka, which again reflected  that  they  were  one  entity.  Merely  because  the  name  of  Lala  Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, was mentioned along with that  of  Presidium  Educational  &  Charitable  Trust  as Defendant  No.3,  does not absolve Defendant No.3 from the liability, on the technical defence. Hence,  the  Leave  to  Defend  Application  was  dismissed  and  the  Suit  of the Plaintiff was decreed.

Aggrieved by the said Judgement, present Appeal had been preferred. The  grounds  of challenge  are that  grant of  Leave  is  the  ordinary Rule  and denial is an exception. Reference has been made to be B. L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. Versus JMS Steels & Power Corporation, C.A. No.379/2022, wherein it has been observed that if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or  higher conditions could be imposed while granting Leave to Defend, but denying the Leave would be ordinarily countenanced only in such cases where Defendant fails to show any genuine triable issue and the defence is found to be frivolous or vexatious.

Learned  Trial  Court  has  misconstrued  that Defendant  No.1,  a  public School was being controlled and operated by Defendant No.3, which is a Charitable Trust.

The  Appellant,  as  per  the Plaintiff,  is  a  Society  registered  under  the Societies Act, which is also evident from the impleadment of Defendant No.3, through its Chairman / Trustee. Therefore, the Suit was not maintainable against the Appellant.

It is further asserted that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society and Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust are different legal  entities  and  not  connected  to  each  other  and  Leave  to  Defend  should have been allowed.

It was claimed that learned District Judge has misconstrued that as Defendant No.3 had been defined as both, Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust as well as the Trust: Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, while there is no such independent entity in existence and therefore, the explanation of the learned District Judge, is not tenable in this regard.

Furthermore,  the  impugned  Order  dated  07.06.2022  has  been passed against Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society and the name of Defendant No.3 Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust is missing,  which  means  no  Decree  has  been  passed  against  Defendant  No.3. In fact, the Decree has been passed against the person, who was not the original Defendant.

It is further asserted that Defendant No.3 had remained unserved therefore, treating the Application of Leave to Defend filed on behalf of Lala Sher Singh  Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, on behalf of  Defendant No.3, is bad and not sustainable.

Learned  District Judge has ignored  that  after  Order dated 20.08.2020 deleting Defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4, only Defendant No.3 survived as sole Defendant. This is a case of non-application of judicial mind and substantial miscarriage of justice and the impugned Order is not sustainable.

Moreover, as per the Report of the Nazir dated 14.09.2020, Summons had been issued to Defendant No.3 i.e., Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust, which were received unserved.  Therefore, when the sole Defendant had been unserved, the Decree could not have followed.

It  has  also  not  been  considered  that  there  was  no privity  of  contract between the Plaintiff and the Appellant. It has been erroneously observed by the learned District Judge that no documents had been filed by the Appellant to show that Appellant and Defendant No.3 are two different entities.

On the contrary, it is neither the case of the Plaintiff nor the documents have been filed by the Plaintiff to claim that Appellant and Defendant No.3 are the same entity.

In the present case, the Appellant had raised serious question of maintainability of the case against a third party  i.e. the Appellant, which entitled  him  to unconditional Leave  to Defend,  but  the  same has  not been considered.

Furthermore, an Application under Section 153 CPC had been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff to make following persons as Defendant No.1:

(i) The Presidium School, Sec 22, Dwarka

(ii) Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.

But  this Application  had  not  been  decided and the  Leave  to  Defend Application, has been rejected. It is submitted that the aforesaid Judgement be set aside and the Leave to Defend Application of the Appellant be allowed.

Submissions Heard and Record Perused.

The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent, was that she had given a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to Presidium School, Sector 22, Dwarka, for which a demand  Promissory  Note  was  duly  executed  on  02.05.2017,  on  which  Ms. Neerja Chawla, as authorized signatory, had signed.

It was asserted by the Plaintiff that having so received the loan, three cheques, one cheque dated 30.04.2018 for principal amount of Rs.15,00,000/-  and  other  two  cheques  dated  07.04.2018  and  07.05.2018  of Rs.14,625/- each, had been issued by Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society), though all three  cheques on  presentation got  dishonoured  with Returning Memo  dated 16.05.2018 with remarks ‘Drawers’s signature not as per mandate or drawers’ signature differ’.

First main contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was never impleaded as party, but decree has been passed only its name. The objection was taken the sole surviving Defendant No.3, was in fact Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust. Since, Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was not made a party, decree could not have been passed against it, which is third party.

First aspect, which may be emphasized is that Defendant No.1 / Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka; Defendant No.2 Neerja Chawla (Authorized Signatory) and Defendant No.4 Presidium Educational Institution Private Limited have been deleted by learned  District Judge vide Order  dated  20.08.2020  by observing  that  they were  not  necessary party to the Suit.

Pertinently, in Defendant No.3, both Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society  have  been  mentioned  and  they  were  clubbed  as  one  entity.  Even  if the contention of the Appellant is accepted that these two are separate entities, then merely because they were shown as Defendant No.3, would not imply that  Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society  was not  a party to  the  present  Suit.  This  is  further  evident  from the  fact  that on receiving the summons for appearance, Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan  Trust  Society  had  furnished  its  address  for  service  of  summons  for Judgment, which was that of the school. To say that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was not a party or that it had not received any summons would be to take hyper-technical objection, which in substance, has no merits.

The Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust may not be a relevant party, but definitely Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society was the main party, which had survived after deletion of Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4. It is frivolous plea taken by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust  Society that  it  was  not  a party to  the  present  Suit.  Hyper-technicality or mere error in mentioning the two entities as separate Defendants or putting  them  as  one,  does  not  take  away  the  substance  of  impleading  both the entities. Learned District Judge therefore, rightly rejected this contention of the Appellant.

Another and more relevant contention was that Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society had no concern with the loan allegedly taken by Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka through its Authorized Signatory Neerja Chawla.

In this context, it is pertinent to refer to these three cheques which reflect that they have been issued on behalf of Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka (A-U-O Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society). Cheques were signed by two Authorized Signatories of Lala Sher Singh Memorial  Jeevan  Vigyan  Trust Society.  For  them,  now to say that they had not issued these cheques, would be to turn back on a document, which speaks otherwise.

It is evident from the name of the two Signatories on the cheques that Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka was a Unit of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society and the cheques had been issued by this Society. It cannot now deny its liability under these three cheques.

The plea that the loan had not been taken by Lala Sher Singh Memorial  Jeevan  Vigyan  Trust  Society  is  absolutely  not  acceptable  for  the loan may have been taken by Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka, but the cheques had been issued by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. The consideration may have been to a third party i.e. the school, but the cheques clearly show the privity of contract between the Plaintiff and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society.

It has been rightly observed by learned District Judge that signature of the Authorized Signatory of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society on these three cheques, clearly speak of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Appellant.

The last circumstance to conclude the controversy, is  the Form 26AS, whereby the interest TDS Certificate was given by Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society. Further, affiliation issued by CBSE also reflected that the school was run by  the Trust / Society  of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, of which Sh. G. S. Matharoo was  the  Chairman.  Even  the  Treasurer  of  Prudence  School,  namely  Akash Gupta, is the President of Presidium Educational and Charitable Trust.

Learned District Judge has also rightly observed that after the service of summons for appearance the address for service of summons for Judgment was given as that of Presidium School, which again shows that School was merely a Unit of Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, which responsible for the activities of the school.

The next contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that there was no agreement in respect of the interest amount,  which has been awarded in the present Suit and therefore, the Suit did not come within the scope of Section 37 of CPC. However, firstly, as has already been referred, the demand Promissory Note dated 02.05.2017, which clearly stipulated that interest @ 13% per annum with monthly interest shall be payable to the Promissory  Note  holder  and  duration  of  return  of  loan  was  specified  as  12 months. This loan was duly received by Presidium School, which was acknowledged vide Receipt of consideration dated 02.05.2017.

Secondly,  claim  of  the  Respondent  is  based  on  three  cheques,  out  of which subsequent two cheques were towards interest. The case of the Plaintiff thus, rests on the three cheques, which amount to the Suit amount of Rs.17,81,531/-. Therefore, the assertion that by inclusion of interest in the present Suit, it went beyond the scope of Order XXXVII of CPC, is not tenable.

It has also been asserted that an Application under Section 153 of CPC was filed by the Plaintiff, in view of the objections taken on behalf of the Respondent / Appellant to implead Presidium School, Sector-22, Dwarka and Lala Sher Singh Memorial Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, through its Chairman Sh. G. S. Matharoo, but this Application never got decided, while Leave to Defend Application was dismissed and the Suit was decreed.

In this regard it may be noted that it is evidently, the Application was made to avoid any technical objection. However, in the light of aforesaid discussion, the non-decision of this Application is irrelevant, as the liability of the Appellant is clearly, established from the aforesaid discussion.

In the end,  it may  be observed that the  Appellant being  the  Society running one of the most prestigious chain of School’s in Delhi and NCR, cannot be expected to contest a case for mere recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- Lacs received in the account of the School, which is also established by the cheques.

There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.

The pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.