QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
KARAFARIN BANK |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
GHOLAM REZA MANSOURY DARA |
Defendant |
____________________
The Defendant was not represented and did not attend
Hearing dates: 23rd November 2009
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Blair:
The facts
Drawn on MSA's a/c with Karafarin Bank | Cheque number | Amount of cheque in Rials | Date (Gregorian) inserted by Bank on day of presentation |
1 | 216510 | 1,780,600,000 | 18.12.05 |
2 | 216511 | 1,781,000,000 | 18.12.05 |
3 | 408493 | 2,700,000,000 | 18.12.05 |
4 | 216534 | 6,920,000,000 | 18.12.05 |
5 | 216509 | 3,116,050,000 | 18.12.05 |
6 | 216539 | 5,630,000,000 | 18.12.05 |
7 | 216529 | 3,118,314,360 | 18.12.05 |
8 | 408491 | 2,664,000,000 | 28.12.06 |
9 (drawn on Mr Dara's a/c with EDBI) | 20/6562938 | 1,000,000,000 | 22.01.07 |
10 | 329364 | 6,000,000,000 | 22.01.07 |
11 | 216526 | 572,084,000 | 01.02.07 |
12 | 408492 | 888,000,000 | 06.02.07 |
13 | 192002 | 211,128,120 | 01.03.07 |
TOTAL | 30,981,176,480 |
The claim on the cheques
1. The undated cheques issue
2. Drawer of cheques issue
"Where the cheque is drawn by way of representation or the attorney-ship of the account-holder, whether being a natural or juridical person, the drawer and the account-holder shall be jointly liable [for] the payment of the amount of the cheque, and the executive writ and judgment of damages shall be issued against both of them on the basis of their joint liability. Moreover, the signatory of the cheque shall have criminal liability in accordance with the provisions of this Act unless he proves that non-payment was caused by the act of the account-holder, his subsequent attorney or representative. In such a case the one who caused non-payment shall have criminal liability."
MR DHILLON: Dr Anvari, I'm looking at your translation of Article 19. Where it says "the cheque is drawn by way of representation or attorneyship of the account-holder"; do you have that?A. Yes.
Q. As I understand it, your opinion here is that the cheques here were drawn by Mr Dara by way of representation or attorneyship of MSA, which is the account-holder in relation to the 12 cheques that were the company cheques.A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Article 19 provides that the drawer, in this case Mr Dara, and the account-holder, which is MSA, shall be jointly liable it says "to the payment" but I think you mean "for the payment" of the amount of the cheque.A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the executive writ and judgment of damages shall be issued against both of them, meaning the drawer, in this case Mr Dara, and the account-holder, which is MSA.A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this really a summary of Article 19 applied to the facts of this case?A. Yes, sir, it is. In addition, if you look at the paragraph 4.2, you see that the Bylaw [as to] the Enforcement of Official Documents also states that when the cheque is drawn by way of representation or attorneyship of account-holder, the drawer and the account-holder are jointly liable to pay the amount of the cheque, and the executive [writ] shall be issued against both of them on the basis of suretyship.
Q. You would say this is a basic concept of Iranian law in relation to cheques?A. Certainly.
3. No longer MSA representative issue
4. 15 Day Presentation Issue
5. Cheques presented for non-secured debts issue
6. Notice of dishonour issue
7. Amount paid by MSA/cheques exceed MSA debts issue
Damages for late payment