IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR
R. Rajendran, S/o. late C. Ramasamy – Appellant
Versus
K. Kullappan, S/o. Kurusamy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenging the judgement and decree dated 01.12.2021 made by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur District, in O.S.No.34 of 2019, the defendant is before this Court with the present appeal suit. The suit was decreed against the appellant herein directing him to pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of plaint till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till date of repayment in full and cost of Rs.67,764.50.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal suit will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the original suit.
3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2019 in brief is as follows:
(i) The defendant is known to the plaintiff. Knowing the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed Rs. 9,00,000/- from him on 09.09.2014 by signing an on-demand promissory note committing to repay the debt with interest at 24% per annum.
(ii) Despite the plaintiff's repeated demands, the defendant did not pay interest or repay the principal. Following repeated demands, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.493307 dated 15.10.2016 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,50
Kundan Lal Rallara v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property Bombay
The court established that the burden of proof regarding consideration lies with the plaintiff, and the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted through circumstantial evidenc....
A promissory note must be supported by consideration and evidence; presumption of validity can be rebutted by proving lack of genuine financial transaction.
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 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 Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; both parties must substantiate claims regarding the nature and existence of consideration for legal....
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, and the defendant can discharge the burden of proof by demonstrating the improbability of considera....
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 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 promissory note establishes a legal presumption of consideration that the defendant must rebut; failure to do so results in judgment favoring the plaintiff.
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.