Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
V. V. Ramani – Appellant
Versus
P. Rajaraman – Respondent
Key Points: - The Plaintiff sought to recover a loan amount with interest based on a promissory note. [21001446780001] - The Defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and the existence of consideration. [21001446780003] - The Plaintiff contended that they are entitled to the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [21001446780005] - Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, presumes that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. (!) - The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration lies with the Defendant. (!) - The Court compared the disputed signature on the promissory note with admitted signatures of the Defendant using Section 73 of the Evidence Act. [21001446780012] - The Defendant failed to effectively rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [21001446780016] - The suit was decreed, directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount with interest and costs. [21001446780018] - The Court awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of the plaint until realization. [21001446780018] - The Defendant was directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as costs. [21001446780018]
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1of O.S. Rules R/W Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and Section 2(1)(C)(1) & Section 7 of the Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act of 2015 to direct the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,71,20,256/- as on date 28.11.2018 along with accrued interest at the rate of interest 24% per annum since the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the amount and for the costs of the suit.)
1. The Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.1,71,20,256/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realization thereof.
2. The Plaintiff states that her father was the late V.B.Venkataraman. The Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff's father. The Defendant ran a school under the name and style of Padma Srinivasan Memorial Vidyalaya Matriculation School. In connection with making improvements to the school, the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff's father from time to time. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant borrowed money from her father on eleven different dates between 18.01.1997 and 20.12.2002. While borrowin
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
