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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 130

K.GNANAPRAKASAM
Samikannu Naicker – Appellant
Versus
Sigamani – Respondent


Advocates:
M/s.Sarvabhuman Associates, for Appellant.
R.Muralidharan, for Respondent.

JUDGMENT: The plaintiff is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount due by the defendant in respect the promissory note dated 1.2.1992.

3. The defendant denied the borrowing from the plaintiff. It is stated, in the written statement, that the defendant has not seen the plaintiff and he is a stranger to the defendant. The defendant was not having any transaction with the plaintiff. The defendant has not received any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant has purchased vessels and certain articles from Sri. Selvasubramania Vilas Vessels Shop, Virudhachalam on 9.6.1990 to the extent of Rs.13,980, out of which, the defendant has paid Rs.7,000 to the owner of the said shop, leaving the balance of Rs.6,980. The defendant has also paid Rs.2,500 and the remaining balance is Rs.4,480 (wrongly typed as Rs.41,480 in the written statement). The shop owner has compelled and demanded the defendant to put his signature on two stamped unwritten blank paper and the defendant had put his signature on the said two stamped unwritten blank paper. The shop owner has fabricated the said stamp paper as promissory not in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the promissory



































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