Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons And Ors. vs S. Rathnaswami Gounder on 11 January, 1991

Selvaraj vs Rajendran on 4 September, 2023

8. The decision in A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons vs. S.Rathnaswami Gounder (cited supra) may not apply to the facts of the present case as the said case was a civil suit based on Hundi. The defendant in the said suit had filed a written statement contending that the hundi was not supported by consideration. In fact the defendant took summons even to the Auditor of the plaintiff's company. In such circumstances it was held that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff for non production of Account Books. The facts of the present case are totally different as in the instant case, the accused has not denied his liability by issuing a reply notice to the accused and he did not also examine himself.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Hemalatha - Full Document

V.K. Siddha Padayachi vs Indian Bank Branch At Shevapet, Salem By ... on 5 February, 1999

19. To the same effect, is the judgment of A learned Single Judge of this court reported in A.S.Duraisami Chettiar Sons v. S. Rathnaswami Gounder, . In that case also, it was held by the learned Judge that the rebuttable of the presumption arising under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be by presumption of law or fact and not necessarily by direct evidence. In that case, the plaintiff being a professional money lender, non production of the account books was held to entitle the court to draw adverse inference and to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff that he had advanced any money to the defendant.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

K.V.Krishnan vs B.A.Damodaran on 23 May, 2006

22. Though the finding of the trial court regarding the means of the plaintiff to advance the loan under Ex.A-1 in the light of the evidence of the defendant himself is erroneous, as there is no acceptable corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no means, the said finding will not in any way affect the ultimate result reached by the trial court. The contention of the respondent that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the appellant on his failure to produce the account books is liable to be rejected, because no question whatsoever has been put to P.W.1 in this regard and no notice calling upon him to produce the account books had been issued. The decision reported in A.I.R.1992 Madras 132 (A.S.Duraisami Chettiar Sons Vs. S.Rathnaswami Gounder) is not applicable to the facts of this case. The facts of that case are totally different.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

S.Ganesh (Died) vs N.A.S.Ansari on 13 July, 2012

52.It is for the Defendant in a given case prima facie to allege and prove when he disputes the Plaintiff title to recover money based on the reason for want of consideration. Ordinarily, the fact that a payee has not produced his account books makes little different. In a case of rebutable presumption, a Court of law is always forced to rely more upon circumstantial evidence than upon direct or definite evidence negative in the facts presumed. If the Plaintiff is a professional money-lender who deliberately suppressed his account books, the Court of law was entitled to draw an adverse inference that his case that he advanced money to the Defendant was not true as per decision in A.S. Duraisamy Chettiar Sons v. Rathnaswami Gounder (S) AIR 1992 Madras at p.132.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

D.Ravichandran vs G.N.Baskaran on 2 July, 2025

16.3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that the defendants played fraud in creation of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6. Despite of notice, the defendants have not produced the original of Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6, which would lead adverse inference, by relying on the rulings in AIR 1992 Madras 132 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/10/2025 06:50:07 pm ) S.A(MD)No.735 of 2014 (A.S.Duraisami Chettiar Sons vs. S.Rathnaswami Gounder), AIR 1981 SC 977 (K.M. Patel v. Firm, Mohamadhussain Rahimbux) and 1994 (2) Civil Law Journal 114 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LR's and Ors.) The suppression of vital documents is fraud on the Court, and adverse inference can be drawn against such party. If really, Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are not forged as contended by the defendants, they could come forward to produce the original of the same.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pandian vs V. Sowrirajan on 16 September, 1998

14. Under Section 118(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved the holder of the cheque, namely, the complainant herein received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharge of the debt. It is true that; this presumption is rebuttable. But in the instant; case, there is no need to invoke Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the materials produced before this Court would make it clear that the accused was liable to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. Therefore, the decisions cited in A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons v. S. Rathnaswami Gounder; AIR 1949 Bom 257 Tarmahmed v. Tyeb Ebrahim; 1998 Cri LJ 759 Narender Anand v. Maruthi Udyog Ltd.; would not be of any use in favour of the petitioner/accused.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document
1   2 Next