SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Mad) 21

ABDUL HADI
Kadarkarai Reddiar – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam Nadar – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:T. R. Rajaraman, P. Jagadeesan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The Judgment was delivered by :

This appeal by the plaintiff is against the dismissal of his suit O. S. No. 523 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The suit is for recovery of Rupees 10, 000/ - as principal with interest due on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant.

2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint is that he lent Rs.10, 000/- to the defendant on 5-10-1975 and obtained from him a promissory note, wherein he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with principal on demand, that the defendant did not choose to discharge the promissory note in spite of the plaintiff's written demand by notice dated 6-10-79 and that the suit is filed belatedly only in view of the operation of stay and bar of suit against the defendant by virtue of Act 15 of 1976.

3. The plea in the written statement may be summarised as follows: The defendant borrowed only a sum of Rs. 2, 000/ - from the plaintiff and signed two blank papers affixed with stamps as a result of compulsion of the circumstances. He agreed to pay 36% interest for the sum of Rs. 2, 000/ - acting under acute necessity. He did not receive Rs. 10, 000/-from the




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top