Back
ASHOK S. KINAGI
Seetha Investments – Appellant
Versus
H. V. Raghavendra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashok S. Kinagi, J.
1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2011 passed in RA No. 124/2008 by the Principal District Judge at Shimoga.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a registered Partnership firm and is a financial institution. It has obtained money laundering licence from the competent authority. Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the plaintiff on 27.04.2000 for the purpose of his business agreeing to repay the said loan with interest at the rate of 23%pa on demand. The plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the defendant through a cheque bearing No. 244010 drawn on Union Bank of India, Shimoga. On the same day towards payment of his dues, the defendant had issued a post dated cheque bearing No. 382265 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Shimoga. On 21.11.2000 the plaintiff presented the cheque issued by the defendant for encashment, but on 22.11.2000 the said cheque was returned dishonoured with shara 'funds insufficient'. Plai
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
The court affirmed that a money lender must have a valid license, but the absence of a license does not invalidate a loan agreement if the lender is not engaged in money lending as a business.
The non-registration of a partnership firm as required under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 renders the suits filed by the unregistered firm non est in law, and subsequent registra....
An admission of signature on a negotiable instrument creates a legal presumption of consideration, which must be rebutted effectively by the defendant.
The presumption of consideration in cheque cases can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden to the complainant to prove the debt, which was not satisfied in this case.
The defendant's evidence rebutting the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the plaintiff's obligation to maintain account books under the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act w....
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
