SINGH HARDEV v. DOKE JITENDRA AND ANOTHER

SINGH HARDEV v. DOKE JITENDRA AND ANOTHER

Court found on balance that only one genuine personal loan of HK$90,000 was proved; Cheques A,B,C relate to that loan and s30 BEO presumption applies; Cheques D and E involved failure of consideration and dishonest alteration by plaintiff; judgment entered for HK$90,000 against 1st defendant with interest from presentation dates of Cheques A,B,C; costs ordered nisi for no order as to costs due to both parties' untruthful testimony.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 889
Parties
Plaintiff: Singh Hardev; 1st Defendant: Doke Jitendra; 2nd Defendant: Kinns Enterprise Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 2018
Case Number
DCCJ2569/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/debt / Judgment (district Court)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant for HK$90,000 plus interest; no order as to costs (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Dishonoured Cheques, Loan Dispute, Company Acquisition, Failure of Consideration, Witness Credibility, Suspected Asset Draining
Source Language
EN
Civil Contract Company Law Negotiable Instruments (bills of Exchange) Dishonoured Cheques Loan Dispute Company Acquisition Failure of Consideration +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Singh Hardev

Plaintiff

Doke Jitendra

1st Defendant

Kinns Enterprise Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/debt / Judgment (district Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff advanced personal loans totalling HK$225,500 to the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether the five cheques were given as loan repayments or payments for goods
  3. 3 Whether s30 Bills of Exchange Ordinance presumption applies to the cheques

Ratio Decidendi

Court found on balance that only one genuine personal loan of HK$90,000 was proved; Cheques A,B,C relate to that loan and s30 BEO presumption applies; Cheques D and E involved failure of consideration and dishonest alteration by plaintiff; judgment entered for HK$90,000 against 1st defendant with interest from presentation dates of Cheques A,B,C; costs ordered nisi for no order as to costs due to both parties' untruthful testimony.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against 1st defendant for HK$90,000 plus interest; no order as to costs (order nisi).

Orders

  • Judgment entered for HK$90,000 against the 1st defendant
  • Interest to be calculated from the date of presentation of Cheques A, B and C pursuant to section 57 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap.19)