THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SRI. KIRAN BHARTIYA – Appellant
Versus
M.D. OMER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of loan transaction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. importance of personal testimony. (Para 9 , 10 , 13) |
| 3. lack of evidence leads to doubts. (Para 30 , 31 , 33) |
| 4. final order and decision. (Para 36) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
The plaintiff instituted the suit asserting that on 03.03.1993, the defendant approached him seeking a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff advanced the said sum on the very same day and that the defendant, in acknowledgment thereof, executed an on-demand promissory note along with a consideration receipt, undertaking to repay the principal with interest at 24% per annum. It is further averred that the defendant agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards interest until full discharge of the loan. According to the plaintiff, despite repeated oral demands, the defendant failed to repay the amount, compelling the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 17.04.1993 and thereafter institute the present suit for recovery.
5. In order to substantiate their respective claims, both parties led oral and documentary evidence. The plain
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.