Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)G. Vasu vs Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri on 8 December, 1986
In G. VASU Vs. SYED YASEEN [AIR 1987 AP 139 FB], a Full Bench of the
Andra Pradesh High Court held as under:
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999
11. As regards the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments
Act, onus of the plaintiff and of the defendant has been dealt with by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in BHARAT BARREL & DRUM MFG. CO. Vs. AMIN CHAND PAYRELAL
[1999 (3) SCC 35].
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
(See KUMAR EXPORTS Vs. SHARMA CARPETS [2009 (2) SCC 513]. The
evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 and Ex.X.1 would clearly show that the 1st defendant had
pledged the jewels of the plaintiff and given them back and under coercion and
undue influence at the police station Ex.A.1 promissory note has been obtained
from the defendants. No consideration has been passed for Ex.A.1. In this
circumstances, the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit.
Madhukar And Ors vs Sangram And Ors on 20 April, 2001
(See MADHUKAR Vs.
SANGRAM [AIR 2001 SC 2171] and PARVATHY, Vs. RAMAKRISHNA MISSION ETC. & 4 OTHERS
[2001-3-LW. 182]). The learned counsel further contended that there is no proof
that the jewels were of plaintiff. Ex.X.1 does not show that when the jewels
were pledged? and whose jewels they are? The evidence let in will not show that
the jewels belongs to the plaintiff. Without proper basis and reasoning the well
reasoned judgment of the trial Court has been wrongly set aside by the First
Appellate Court.
H.M. Kari Gowder vs S.A.K. Chinnathambi Chettiar And Ors. on 18 September, 1975
9. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that even without independent evidence, defendants can establish
their case from the evidence of plaintiff itself. However, in this case,
voluminous evidence has been let in by the defendants and it had rebutted the
presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (See H.M.KARI
GOWDER Vs. S.A.K. CHINNATHAMBI CHETTIAR AND OTHERS [1976-2-MLJ 191]. A suit
cannot be decreed merely on the basis of presumption under Section 118 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
N. Selvakumaaran, M. Subramaniam And ... vs The Special Commissioner, Hindu ... on 29 April, 2003
(See MURUGAN Vs. SUBRAMANIA GOUNDER [1997
(III) CTC 478]). The First Appellate Court must record his reasons as to why it
disagree with the findings of the trial Court, otherwise the First Appellate
Court cannot be said to have properly discharged its duty.
1