Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA
Vikramjeet – Appellant
Versus
Parkash Chand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the loan and dispute. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding evidence. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's analysis on evidence and legal standards. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final decision and dismissal of appeal. (Para 10) |
Defendant of the case has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as the suit for recovery of Rs.3,75,000/- (being principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and interest of Rs.75,000/-), based upon pronote and receipt dated 22.07.2018, was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 03.04.2024 and the appeal filed by the defendant–appellant was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 29.07.2025.
2. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, inasmuch as the plaintiff neither proved his financial capacity nor the alleged friendly relations between the parties.
3. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and has perused the paper-book.
4. According to the plaintiff, he had friendly relations with
A valid pronote presumes consideration and obligates the borrower unless substantial evidence suggests otherwise, establishing grounds for recovery despite allegations of forgery.
The presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies unless rebutted, and the burden of proving fraud lies with the defendant, who failed to provide evidenc....
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is robust against mere denial by the borrower of signing promissory notes.
Personal testimony is essential in monetary claims; absence undermines credibility.
The court affirmed that a money lender must have a valid license, but the absence of a license does not invalidate a loan agreement if the lender is not engaged in money lending as a business.
Court deemed the execution of the pronote unproven due to insufficient evidence by the plaintiff and reliance on expert evidence favoring the defendant.
The execution of a promissory note creates a presumption of consideration, which the defendant must rebut with credible evidence to avoid liability.
The court upheld the validity of promissory notes, emphasizing the defendant's failure to prove forgery or lack of capacity to lend, thus confirming the trial court's judgment.
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
