Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ram Lal Sao S/o Late Laloo Saw – Appellant
Versus
Hasina Khatoon W/o Late Md. Yasin – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Accordingly, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondents.
3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2007 whereby and where under, the learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No. 1, Bermo at Tenughat allowed the appeal and dismissed the Money Suit No. 01 of 2005 which was decreed on contest by the trial court and the trial court directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1,05,000/- to the plaintiff.
4. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that the plaintiff provided Rs. 1,05,000/- to the defendant as friendly loan. The defendant on 23.02.2002 executed the money receipt in presence of witnesses in favour of the plaintiff. After lapse of some period, the plaintiff demanded the money and ultimately on 08.09.2004, the defendant handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,05,000/- payable to the plaintiff with the assurance that the cheque should
The court ruled on the erroneous burden of proof and misinterpretation of evidence regarding a dishonored cheque, impacting the enforceability of monetary claims.
Presumption under NI Act Sections 118/139 rebutted by plaintiff's inconsistent evidence and non-production of payment proof despite signature admission.
An admission of signature on a negotiable instrument creates a legal presumption of consideration, which must be rebutted effectively by the defendant.
A suit for recovery of money based on a negotiable instrument may be maintained despite the cheque being stale for criminal prosecution, provided the underlying transaction is proven; however, the pr....
The court ruled that when a cheque is issued for a loan, the burden of proof lies with the defendant to refute its issuance, and failure to provide sufficient evidence results in liability for the am....
Where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by....
The burden of proof lies with the party introducing evidence, and mere admission of documents does not constitute proof under the Evidence Act.
In a suit based on a dishonored cheque, the plaintiff must prove the underlying transaction, after which presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act apply, and the defendant can rebut these wit....
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
