Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Shakur And Ors. vs Kotwaleshwar Prasad And Ors. on 8 February, 1956

T.Senthilvelan vs A.Senthil Kumar on 31 August, 2018

If the want of consideration is proved, then only will the holder be called upon to prove the passing of consideration. The presumption has been borrowed by the Indian Legislature from the English law; many of the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act also are borrowed from British Bankruptcy Acts. But no English authority has been cited in support of the proposition that the presumption is to be drawn against the maker of the negotiable instrument and not against other persons such as an official receiver or other creditors of the maker. There is also no English 29/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.S.A.No.13 of 2019 authority suggesting that the onus of proof shifts in certain circumstances from the party alleging the want of consideration to the party relying upon it. The English authorities, which I have referred to above, simply lay down that an Insolvency Court is entitled to go behind a decree or judgment and decide whether there was a good consideration for the debt. They were referred to by this Court in --
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Anjanappa vs Byrappa on 5 July, 1995

10. It is no doubt true that as regards the findings of fact, ordinarily this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 does not interfere. No doubt it is one of the trite principles of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure that howsoever grossly erroneous the finding of fact may be, it cannot be interfered with in Second Appeal unless and until the same is vitiated by error of law of substantial nature. In other words, the finding of fact cannot be interfered with merely on the ground of mis-appreciation of the evidence. But mis-appreciation of evidence stands on a different footing and has to be differentiated from the cases where it is found that the case is based on mis-reading of the evidence or where the finding has been arrived at after having ignored certain material or material evidence on record. The finding of fact where it is initiated by error of law in the sense that the finding has been arrived at on the basis of conjectures and surmises or that it has been arrived at without considering and without application of mind to the relevant piece of evidence on record or it is otherwise vitiated by error of law of substantial nature, the finding of fact can be interfered with. The illustrations mentioned are not exhaustive. The cases in which the principle of law in this regard has been explicitly laid down upon are Abdul Shakur and Ors. v. Kotwaleshwar Prasad and Ors., V. Ramachandra Iyer v. Rama Linga Chetty and Dilbagrai Punjabi v. Sharath Chandra.
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Punjab National Bank vs Viii Additional District Judge, ... on 16 February, 2000

In Abdul Shakur and others v. Kotwaleshwar Prasad and others, AIR 1958 All 54, it was clarified that the estoppel by conduct relates to the act prior to the litigation. An agreement to lease entered into between the parties can be given effect to in accordance with Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that a lease of immovable' property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving an yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument. Other leases of Immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. The parties herein executed an agreement for lease on 1.7.1985. It was only for a period of 11 months. It was not registered document. Clause 2(1) of the agreement provided that the period of lease can be extended for a period of 11 months and maximum up to 5 years. It was an option given to the parties to extend the period of lease. The lease for five years. however, could be made only by a registered deed as contemplated under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bonala Lakshmaiah vs Sagu Pullayya And Ors. on 19 February, 1960

8. With regard to the debts due to the first petitioner, both the Courts below have found that the debt, due under Ex. A.1, a pronote executed by the first respondent for Rs. 275/- is proved by the evidence of P. W. 1. The second petitioner did not choose to examine himself to prove the promissory notes Exs. A.2, A.3 and A.4 or the passing of consideration thereunder, Learned Counsel for the petitioners relics on a decision in Abdul Shakur v. Kotwaleshwar Prasad, (S) (F. B.) and contends that the presumption mentioned in Clause (1), of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be invoked in insolvency proceedings where an alleged debt against the insolvent is called in question.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1