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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 316

K.GNANAPRAKASAM
K. Mani – Appellant
Versus
Elumalai – Respondent


Advocates:
T.N.Rajaraman, for Appellant.
P.Valliappan, for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, for Respondent.

JUDGMENT: The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount due on promissory notes dated 3.2.1998 and 15.7.1998.

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


































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