Back
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Kandati Sarada – Appellant
Versus
Godthi Satish Chowdary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’), is filed by the Appellant/1st Defendant, challenging the decree and Judgment dated 20.10.2009 in O.S. No. 184 of 2003 passed by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the trial Court’). 1st Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 184 of 2003 seeking recovery of Rs. 4,46,519/- with interest and costs from the Defendants based on the promissory note. The case against the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant was dismissed for default on 08.06.2005.
2. Referring to the parties as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.
3. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once execution of the promissory note is established, placing the burden on the Defendant to rebut this pr....
The burden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing convincing evidence to prove the non-existence of consideration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut this presump....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
The presumption of consideration applies to promissory notes once execution is admitted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the defendant can discharge the burden of proof by demonstrating the improbability of considera....
Plaintiff must establish passing of consideration for promissory notes, and failure to do so shifts evidential burden to plaintiff
The courts affirmed the validity of a promissory note based on direct evidence, emphasizing that expert testimony is weak and should not override substantive evidence.
The appellate court found the promissory note invalid due to lack of consideration and conflicting evidence, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
