Back
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
P. Easwaran – Appellant
Versus
D. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of a sum of 10,80,900/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization of the principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in the present appeal.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the plaintiff case is as follows :
The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.9 lakhs on 25.01.2016 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note on the same day agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 1.50 ps per month per hundred. Despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 18.10.2016 calling upon the defendant to repay the amount along with agreed rate of interest. The defendant sent a reply on 05.11.2016 with false allegations. Hence, the suit.
4. The defence taken by the defendant in the written statement is that copies of the documents have not been served to properly. Therefore, th
The execution of a promissory note is presumed valid under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendant to disprove it, which was not achieved in this case.
The execution of a promissory note is presumed valid under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove lack of consideration.
The presumption of validity for negotiable instruments is established unless effectively rebutted by the defendant, who bears the burden of proof regarding allegations of forgery.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration, and the credibility of witnesses and consistency of evidence are crucial in....
The court confirmed that once a plaintiff establishes the execution of a promissory note, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove its validity; failure to do so upholds the note's legal presum....
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 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.
The presumption of consideration applies to promissory notes once execution is admitted, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which creates a presumption in favor of the plaintiff once the execution of a pro....
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
