Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR
S.Prakash – Appellant
Versus
K.Ravichandran – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenge has been made to the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
2. The parties are hitherto referred to as per their own ranking.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.8 lakhs for his family and business expenses on 14.03.2012 and executed a pronote. Since, the defendant has not paid either the principal nor the interest, on the repeated demands, the defendant issued two cheques bearing Nos.176463 for a sum of Rs.575000/- dated 10.05.2013 and 176453 for a sum of Rs.430000/- dated 27.03.2013. When the plaintiff presented the cheque dated 10.05.2013, the same was dishonored and returned with endorsement "Account No.6951710000068 was closed". Hence, the plaintiff did not present the other cheque. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money.
4. It is the case of the defendant in written statement that the plaintiff is running finance companies and also chit business, besides, the defendant was was a subscriber to the chit funds and also was in the habit of receiving money from the plaintiff. There were money transactions between 2007 to 2013 between the plaintiff
The execution of a promissory note establishes a legal presumption of consideration that the defendant must rebut; failure to do so results in judgment favoring the plaintiff.
The execution of a pronote is presumed valid under the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the defendant provides sufficient evidence to disprove consideration.
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 execution of a Pronote establishes a legal presumption of consideration, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove it.
Execution of Promissory Notes is valid unless substantial evidence to the contrary dislodges the legal presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to issued cheques, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise.
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 execution of a pronote creates a presumption of borrowing and debt, and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to rebut this presumption.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
