R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL
R. Venkatesan @ Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
Jitesh Kumar Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2023 in O.S.No.109 of 2021 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
With the consent of the counsel on either side, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal since the records of the trial Court has been received.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the decree for payment of money granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.109 of 2021 in favour of the respondent herein. The respondent/plaintiff sued for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,40,000/-allegedly due under a promissory note dated 25.12.2017 with interest at 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the date of plaint till date of realisation.
3. The substance of the averments in the plaint is as follows:
The defendant and his brother Mr.R.Govindaraj had moved the plaintiff's father Manohar Jain who was a money lender. On the recommendation of the said Govindaraj and upon request by the defendant, the plaintiff's father advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant during October 2013. As a security for repayment of the said sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 24% per an
Hiralal vs. Badkulal AIR 1953 SC 225
Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Payrelal (1999) 3 SCC 35
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the defendant can discharge the burden of proof by demonstrating the improbability of considera....
The burden of proof to disprove the existence of consideration for a negotiable instrument lies with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 118 of th....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; both parties must substantiate claims regarding the nature and existence of consideration for legal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut this presump....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once execution of the promissory note is established, placing the burden on the Defendant to rebut this pr....
Plaintiff must establish passing of consideration for promissory notes, and failure to do so shifts evidential burden to plaintiff
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Act is a statutory presumption and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
The court found the plaintiff failed to establish the execution of the promissory note, concluding the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be in....
The appellate court found the promissory note invalid due to lack of consideration and conflicting evidence, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
The burden lies on the defendants to rebut the presumption under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by adducing convincing evidence to prove the non-existence of consideration.
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.