Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M. MANOJ, J
Lal C George S/o George – Appellant
Versus
M/s NCR Financers Karappara Buildings, Vakathanam Village, Changanacherry – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The Original Petition is preferred by the Plaintiffs in three commercial suits on the files of Commercial Court, Kottayam. The plaints are for the realisation of money amounting to Rs.26 lakhs, stated to have been borrowed on three different occasions, i.e., 21.04.2015, 24.04.2015 and 02.05.2015. The amounts borrowed on the respective dates were Rs.6 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs. The demand is raised on the basis of a promissory note issued by the defendants. On failure, Suits were filed as CS No.432/2021 for an amount of Rs.18,71,000/-, CS No.309/2021 for an amount of Rs.37,40,300/- and CS No.22/2020 for an amount of Rs.11,21,800/-. Exts.P1 to P3 are the plaints filed before the Commercial Court, Kottayam.
2. The defendants filed written statement denying the transactions. It is denied that the defendants had approached the plaintiff for availing loan of Rs.36 lakhs in total. It is their case that on account of dire necessity, taking advantage of the precarious and vulnerable position of the defendants, the plaintiff compelled them to put their signatures in various printed forms and plain papers more than 10 in numbers. One Ipekutty Thomas, who is the person in
The trial court's refusal to allow witness examination and document production in money lending disputes was perverse, necessitating intervention under Article 227 to prevent manifest injustice.
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....
Promissory notes qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, enabling suits for money recovery in the Commercial Court despite challenges on jurisdiction and compliance with proce....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is robust against mere denial by the borrower of signing promissory notes.
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 court emphasized the limited scope of inquiry at the stage of issuance of summons under Section 138 of the NI Act and the applicability of the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the NI A....
The court found the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of the promissory note, concluding the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be in....
The presumption of execution in promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act outweighs claims of fabrication by the defendant without substantial evidence.
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
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
