Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
19. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 4 SCC 194
[Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kurmar] relied on by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant/Plaintiff are factually distinguishable. The facts in this case is that
the Defendant 1 to Defendant 4 on behalf of the third Defendant Company
alleged to have borrowed money from the Plaintiff on various dates and issued
cheques towards repayment of the loan. The loan was for the purpose of
developing the third Defendant Company. The Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the
Directors of the third Defendant Company. Whereas Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 are
promissory notes in which it was specifically stated that the amount is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 03:39:31 pm )
20/26
A.S.No.384 of 2020
borrowed for the family expenses by the fourth Defendant and the son of
fourth Defendant Rajesh. The first Defendant is not a signatory to those
documents.
Section 87 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1