K.GNANAPRAKASAM
K. Mani – Appellant
Versus
Elumalai – Respondent
2. The plaintiffs’ case is that on 3.2.1998, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,500 promising to repay the same together with 12% interest per annum and executed the first promissory note. The defendant also borrowed another sum of Rs.5,000 on 15.7.1998 and executed the second promissory note, promising to repay the same together with 12% interest per annum. The defendant has not paid any amount towards these promissory notes and to the notice dated 23.7.1999, the defendant sent a reply on 5.8.1999. As the defendant has not paid the amount, the plaintiff laid the suit.
3. The defendant in his written statement had stated that he never borrowed any amount on 3.2.1998 or on 15.7.1998. The defendant was conducting a chit and in respect of the same, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,750 only, for which, the plaintiff obtained the signature of the defendant in the blank printed promissory notes and filled up the same with the help of his men. The second promissory note dated 15.7.1998 was also filled up by the plaintiff in the
Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1008
Chidambaram v. P. T. Ponnusamy [1997] 1 L.W. 843
Samikannu Naicker v. Sigamani [2002] 2 C.T.C. 140 : [2002] 1 M.L.J. 830
P. Talamali Chetty v. Rathinasamy [1997] 1 L.W. 843 : [1997] 2 M.L.J. 147
Mrs. Om Prabha Jain v. Abnash Chand [1968] 2 S.C.J. 807; A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1083
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.