Plaintiff and the consideration mentioned in the Promissory Note is false and also that the Promissory Note is not a valid one.
16.Further ... recitals of Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, dated 01.10.1979 to the effect that in Ex.A.1 Promissory Note, there are recitals found in Tamil
Suit Promissory Note and that they had not received the consideration and also that the signatures found in the promissory note do not belong ... behalf of the Respondents/Defendants that Ex.A1-Promissory Note is a forgery one and that it has not executed
Promissory Note is a fabricated one and that the Appellate Court has committed an error in comparing the signature found in Ex.A1 Promissory ... from the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff and that the suit Promissory note is a rank forgery and a close relative of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff
held as follows:
Where it was agreed that a promissory note should be executed by two persons A and B; and that both of them ... Sevugan Chetti (1) : Followed.
When a material portion of a promissory note is a forgery, the whole note is invalid. There is no difference
from it and that the Appellant /
Defendant has executed a suit promissory note agreeing to pay interest thereon ... forgery. The Respondent / Plaintiff has
created the same. The Appellant / Defendant has never borrowed any amount from
the Respondent/Plaintiff and never executed any promissory
Respondent/Plaintiff. In short, the Appellant/Defendant has
averred that the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the
Appellant/Defendant ... Defendant's signature prepared the
document and committed the offence to forgery. To put it precisely, the stand
of the Appellant/Defendant is that
Radhabai vs Arunagiri on 24 January, 2008
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: S.J.Mukhopadhaya , M
A.Thayalan vs S.S.Mani on 8 October, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M
M/S State Bank Of India vs H.Champalal Jain on 18 March, 2010
Author
Radhabai vs Arunagiri, Muthulakshmi, The Manager, ... on 24 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)2MLJ880
Author
