Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr on 16 March, 1999
In
re: Iswar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera &
Another, 1999(2) Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C.), the Apex Court has held that
if a party does not enter into the witness box to make statement on oath in
support of his pleadings, an adverse inference would be drawn that what he
has stated in the pleadings is not correct. In view of these observations, an
adverse inference has to be drawn against the conduct of the plaintiff for
abstaining or keeping himself off the witness box.
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
In re: Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., 2005
(1) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 240, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held
that attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear and depose as a witness on
behalf of the principal in the matter of his personal knowledge. He can only
appear as a witness in his own capacity to depose with regards to the acts
done by him on behalf of the principal.
Allampati Subba Reddy vs Neelapareddi Ramanareddi on 28 September, 1965
In re: Allampati
Subba Reddy v. Neelapareddi Ramanareddi, AIR 1996 Andhra
Pradesh 267, it has been held that the plaintiff seeking to enforce
promissory note must explain to Court as to when and how alteration was
R.S.A. No.4157 of 2004 -9-
made. In absence of such explanation, the plaintiff must fail and onus is on
him to show that material alteration was made either with the consent of
parties or in order to effectuate common intention of parties. In absence of
such plea, presumption is that material alteration was made subsequent to
execution of document. Promissory note is, therefore, void under Section
87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It cannot be enforced in Court of law.
In the current case, the plaintiff has not explained as to when and how the
pointed alterations were made. Thus, it has been rendered void.
K.M. Basappa And Anr. vs Patel Marule Gowda And Anr. on 13 March, 1951
As
observed in re: K.M. Basappa and another v. Patel Marule Gowda and
another, AIR (38) 1951 Mysore 102, the party who has the custody of an
instrument made for his benefit is bound to preserve it in its original state
and any material alteration will vitiate the instrument. The alteration of the
month in the deed mentioned in the pronote is a material alteration. Where a
party sues on an instrument which on the face of it appears to have been
altered, it is for him to show that the alteration had not been improperly
made.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
1