Kotla Sudheer Kumar vs Mallavarapu Jojayya Alias Jojaiah ... on 5 December, 2001
We approve the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in Kotla Sudheer Kumar v. Mallavarapu Jojayya @ Jojaiah Chowdary (1 supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Bolisetti Bhavannarayana @ Venkata ... vs Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, ... on 8 February, 1996
Learned single Judge of this Court in Kotla Sudheer Kumar v. Mallavarapu Jojayya @ Jojaiah Chowdary (1 supra), after referring the decision of the Full Bench in Bolisetti Bhavanarayana v. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm (2 supra) came to the conclusion that all the ingredients are to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. In a way the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the ingredients are to be satisfied cumulatively. We are more concerned with the words 'to the order of'. The definition of promissory note and illustrations thereto have been referred in the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgment.
Govula Ramakistiah vs Yerram Yellappa on 9 March, 1959
13. A division bench of this Court in Ramakistiah v. Yellappa referred Section 4 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act and observed as hereunder:
State Bank Of Hyderabad Per V.V. Shastri vs Ranganath Rathi on 5 March, 1964
It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Ranganath's case (5 supra) that negotiability is the test of a promissory note. The expression 'on demand' in a promissory note has a technical meaning. It means 'payable immediately or forthwith'. But every document which contains a promise to pay on demand is not necessarily a promissory note. Where notwithstanding the existence of the words "on demand", the documents did not satisfy the test of negotiability, they were not promissory notes.
1