Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Ramani Mohan Bhattacharjee vs Surjya Kumar Dhar And Anr. on 7 December, 1941
In this connection, he has placed reliance on Barhamdeo Singh v. Kari Singh, AIR 1936 Pat 498, Ramani Mohan Bhattacharjee v. Surjya Kumar, AIR 1943 Cal 22, Tarmahomed Haji Abdul v. Tyeb Ebrahim, AIR 1949 Bom 257, Pardhan Purshottam v. Shantilal Pursushottam, AIR 1954 Sau 42, besides referring to certain observations made by a Full Bench in Heerachand v. Jeevraj, AIR 1959 Raj 1.
Tarmahomed Haji Abdul Rehman vs Tyeb Ebrahim Bharamchari on 10 November, 1948
In this connection, he has placed reliance on Barhamdeo Singh v. Kari Singh, AIR 1936 Pat 498, Ramani Mohan Bhattacharjee v. Surjya Kumar, AIR 1943 Cal 22, Tarmahomed Haji Abdul v. Tyeb Ebrahim, AIR 1949 Bom 257, Pardhan Purshottam v. Shantilal Pursushottam, AIR 1954 Sau 42, besides referring to certain observations made by a Full Bench in Heerachand v. Jeevraj, AIR 1959 Raj 1.
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
In this connection he has cited Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran, AIR 1930 PC 57, Trojan and Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235, Sheodhari Rai v Suraj Prasad Singh, AIR 1954 SC 758.
Chandan Lal Joura vs Amin Chand Mohan Lal And Ors. on 18 April, 1960
12. The cases referred to above clearly disclose conflict of judicial opinion on the question of onus where it is found that the consideration originally pleaded has been found to be false. I am, however, bound by the decisions of this Court which are in consonance with the view taken by the Lahore High Court and following those decisions, I am bound to hold that once the defendant had shown that the cash consideration which was originally pleaded for the Hundi did not pass, he had discharged the onus which lay upon him of proving the lack of consideration in view of the presumption that is attached to the Hundi as a negotiable instrument under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the onus then shifted upon the plaintiff to prove that there was consideration. The question of onus in such a case where no, other consideration excepting cash was ever pleaded by the plaintiff at the trial cannot be said to be mere academic. Once the plaintiff had failed to prove that the consideration recited in the Hundi did not pass, it was for him to satisfy the Court that the Hundi was in fact for consideration and also to disclose what that consideration was.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Heerachand vs Jeevraj And Anr. on 28 March, 1958
In this connection, he has placed reliance on Barhamdeo Singh v. Kari Singh, AIR 1936 Pat 498, Ramani Mohan Bhattacharjee v. Surjya Kumar, AIR 1943 Cal 22, Tarmahomed Haji Abdul v. Tyeb Ebrahim, AIR 1949 Bom 257, Pardhan Purshottam v. Shantilal Pursushottam, AIR 1954 Sau 42, besides referring to certain observations made by a Full Bench in Heerachand v. Jeevraj, AIR 1959 Raj 1.
1