Back
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Chandra Prakash Baid and Sons – Appellant
Versus
Sharad Kumar Daga, S/o Late Shri Poonam Chand Daga – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of judgment and decree passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) passed on 16.08.2007 in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 2007 filed by the plaintiff wherein suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been dismissed.
2. For convenience plaintiff and defendant are termed as it exists before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff has filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 95,000/-along with interest of Rs. 24,475/-@ 1% per hundred on Rs. 75000/-from 01.02.2003 to 15.12.2005 and on Rs. 20,000/-from 21.06.2004 to 24.12.2005.
4. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the defendant sought some financial assistance from plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-, the said amount was given to him through Cheques No. 515874 dated 05.07.2001, 562885 dated 27.11.2001 and 562885 dated 12.12.2001 for a sum of Rs. 25000/-each and the defendant agreed to pay interest of Rs. 1.25%, 1.5% and 1.625% respectively to the amounts. The defendant for the se
An acknowledgment of payment must contain the debtor's signature to extend the limitation period; otherwise, the suit is barred by limitation.
An acknowledgment of debt must be in writing and signed to extend the limitation period; unsigned entries are legally insufficient.
The court established that the limitation period for recovery of loans starts from the date of the loan agreement, with the first day excluded in the computation.
In a civil suit, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish claims by preponderance of probabilities, independent of any acquittal in a related criminal case.
The court emphasized that ocular evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses, can outweigh the opinion of a handwriting expert. The court held that the plaintiff's evidence, including the validity o....
The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof regarding the authenticity of a promissory note lies with the party alleging forgery, and the evidence must be evaluated on the preponderance of probabil....
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
