Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.08 seconds)
Documents citing Singar Kunwar vs Basdeo Prasad And Ors. on 11 February, 1930

Smt. Shamim Afroz And Ors. vs Mehfooz-Ul Hasan And Ors. on 6 September, 2006

(Emphasis supplied) It has to be borne in mind that, when evidence has been adduced on both sides, the question of onus is a material or deciding factor only in exceptional circumstances, of Yellappa Ramappa Naik v. Tippanna, 56 Mad LJ 287 : AIR 1929 Mad 8 and that even the onus under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not always be discharged by direct evidence adduced by the defendant; Muhammad Shaft Khan v. Muhammad Moazzam AH Khan 79 Ind Cas 464 : AIR 1923 All 214, Singar Kunwar v. Basdeo Prasad 124 Ind Cas 717 : AIR 1930 All 568 and Bishambar Das v. Ismail AIR 1933 Lah 1029.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - R Menon - Full Document

Elias Saleh Mohamed Sait And Ors. vs Khanmull And Ors. on 19 September, 1958

4. Sri T. M. Krishnaswamy Iyer, the learned Counsel for the contesting defendants has invited our attention to a large number of decisions to ascertain the true scope of the plea of undue influence. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in Permanent it Trustee Co., New South-Wales Ltd. v. Francis Henry Bridgewater, AIR 1937 PC 14; Sundarammal v. Subramania Chet-tiar, 29 Mad LJ 236: (AIR 191C Mad 278), Sami Sah v. Parthasarathy Chetty, 31 Ind Gas 739: (AIR 1916 Mad 862), Singar Kunwar v. Basdeo Prasad, AIR 1930 All 568; Palanivelu Mudaliar v. Neelavathi Ammal, AIR 1937 PC 50; and Rama Patter and Bros. v. Manikkam, ILR 58 Mad 454: (AIR 1935 Mad 726).
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K S Hegde - Full Document

A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons vs S. Rathnaswami Gounder on 11 January, 1991

"It had to be borne in mind that, when evidence has been adduced on both sides, the question of onus is a material or deciding factor only in excecptional circumstances, Yellappa Ramappa Naik v. Tippanna, 56 Mad LJ 287 : AIR 1929 PC 8 and that even the onus under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not always be discharged by direct evidence adduced by the defendant Muhammad Shafi Khan v. Muhammad, Moazzam Ali Khan, 79 Ind Cas 464 : (AIR 1923 All 214), Singar Kunwar v. Basdeo Prasad, 124 Ind Cas 717; AIR 1930 All 568 and Bishambar Das v. Ismail, AIR 1933 Lahore 1029.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mallavarapu Narasamma And Ors. vs Boggavarapu Bulli Veerraju on 18 October, 1934

Whatever comment may be made upon the way in which the learned Judges have expressed themselves in these cases, the principle underlying these decisions seems to us unexceptionable; and in dealing with rebuttable presumptions, it is common knowledge that the Court is often obliged to rely more upon circumstances than upon direct or definite evidence negativing the fact presumed : cf. Singer Kunwar v. Basdeo 1930 All.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Unknown vs Dr.T.D.Naidu

It has to be borne in mind that, when evidence has been adduced on both sides, the question of onus is a material or deciding factor only in exceptional circumstances, cf. Yellappa Ramappa Naik v. Tippanna 56 Mad LJ 287 : MANU/TN/0153/1928 : AIR 1929 Mad 8 and that even the onus under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not always be discharged by direct evidence adduced by the Defendant; Muhammad Shafi Khan v. Muhammad Moazzam Ali Khan MANU/UP/0548/1922 : 79 Ind Cas 464 : AIR 1923 All 214, Singar Kunwar v. Basdeo Prasad MANU/UP/0088/1930 : 124 Ind Cas 717 : AIR 1930 All 568 and Bishambar Das v. Ismail MANU/LA/0500/1932 : AIR 1933 Lah 1029.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

Lal Girwar Lal vs Dau Dayal on 6 February, 1935

5. As in the present case there is no such going back, we are not called upon to consider the bearing of this ruling on this case, although it may be pointed out that Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Apt, does not speak of any cash consideration. The case of Singar Kunwar v. Basdeo Prasad 1930 All. 568, has no application because there the presumption under Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act, was applied, but it was held that that presumption had been rebutted by the evidence in the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1