Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.37 seconds)Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu Money-Lenders Act, 1957
P.M. Desappa Nayanim Varu And Ors. vs Ramabhaktula Ramiah And Ors. on 12 December, 1950
(a) In P.M.Desappa Nayanim Varu and others v. Ramabhaktula Ramiah and others [1951] II MLJ at p.43 wherein it is held as follows:
Smt. Sharadamma W/O Late Gangaiah vs Smt. Kenchamma W/O Late Gangaiah And ... on 8 August, 2006
(b)In Smt. Sharadamma v. Smt.Kenchamma and others AIR 2007 Karnataka at p.17 wherein it is observed as follows:
S. Padmavathamma vs S. Sudha Rani And Ors. on 10 March, 2004
(d)In Smt.S.Padmavathamma v. Smt.S.Sudha Rani and others AIR 2004 Andhra Pradesh at p.309 at p.310 it is held that General Power of Attorney holder can appear as a witness only in his personal capacity and that he cannot appear as witness on behalf of plaintiff in capacity of plaintiff as he cannot speak about facts which are within personal knowledge of party.
Kanadapudi Bharathy, Gudivada And ... vs Authority Under Section Of A.P.S.E. ... on 28 April, 1999
(f)In Kanakapudi Bharathy and another v. Authority Under Section 50 of A.P.S.E. Act-cum-Labour Officer, Machilipatnam and another 2000 A I H C at p.87 at p.88 at p.89 in paragraph No.5 it is held as follows:-
John Kennady @ Murugan vs V.Bhagavathi on 10 June, 2008
33.However, this Court in the decision John Kennady @ Murugan v. V.Bhagavathi, rep. by her Power of Attorney P.Cholaraja (2008)7 MLJ at p.646 held that in a suit filed by the Power of Attorney holder himself after obtaining leave from the Court without any objection, there is no legal bar to held the Power of Attorney to give evidence on behalf of the principal. How far that evidence is valid is to be considered at the time of disposing of the suit.
A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons And Ors. vs S. Rathnaswami Gounder on 11 January, 1991
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.