Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Sheo Nath Prasad vs Sarjoo Nonia And Anr. on 12 March, 1943
This decision in the aforesaid case is directly in conflict with the ruling of the Pull Bench reported in -- 'Sheo Nath Prasad v. Sarjoo Nonia', (B) (ubi supra) which does not seem to have been cited.
Nazir Khan And Anr. vs Ram Mohan Lal And Anr. on 3 July, 1930
In --'Nazir Khan v. Ram Mohan', AIR 1931 AH 183 (PB) (A), a suit was brought for the recovery of a loan on the allegation that the loan had been advanced on foot of .a promissory note. The claim was based on the original contract, of loan, because the promissory note being insufficiently stamped could not be admitted in evidence. In defence the taking of the loan as alleged by the plaintiff was denied. It was pleaded that a sum of Rs. 50/- alone was borrowed which had been repaid. The Full Bench held that: (a) where there was a completed cause of action for recovery of money on foot of a distinct and separate transaction, and a promissory note was given as a collateral security, the creditor could sue for the recovery of money on the original cause of action even if the promissory note was not, for any reason, admissible in evidence; (b) but where the making and handing over of the promissory note and the-advance of the loan were part and parcel of the same transaction, this could not be done.
Sadasuk Janki Das vs Maharaja Sir Kishan Pershad Bahadur on 1 November, 1918
In -- 'Sadasukh Janki Das v. Kishen Pershad', AIR 1918 PC 146 (E), a suit on the basis of hundis failed because their due execution could not be proved, Lord Buckmaster, however, in delivering the opinion of the Board, observed:
Section 4 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Ram Nath vs Bhagwati Prasad And Anr. on 16 April, 1945
In--'AIR 1952 A11 509 (I)', Dayal, J. followed 'Ram Nath's case (H)', and no reference was made at all to 'Major Mistri's Full Bench case, (C)'. in -- 'AIR 1952 All 877 (J)', the plaintiff sued on the basis of a loan. The defendant denied the taking of the loan. It was found that a promissory note was also executed simultaneously with the loan but that it was insufficiently stamped. It was observed- that since the promissory note contained an unconditional undertaking to pay the amount, this undertaking could not be
proved by oral evidence because of the bar of Section 91, Evidence Act. With great respect we find ourselves unable to agree with this dictum as the unconditional undertaking to pay the amount is merely one of the terms of the contract of loan and Section 91 admittedly has no application when all the terms of the contract are not reduced to the form of a document.
Kanhai Lal vs Brij Nandan on 21 January, 1952
24. Learned counsel for' the appellant relied on three decisions of this court -- 'Ram Nath v. Bhagwati Prasad', AIR 1946 All 150 (H), -- 'Kanhai Lal v. Brij Nandan', AIR 1952 All 509 (I), and -- Lila Singh v. Chhajju Singh', AIR 1952 All 877 (J).
1