Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)
In The Matter Of Jyoti Gangwani vs . P. K. Bajaj on 21 February, 2013 cites

Bhajan Kaur And Others vs Tarlok Singh on 12 November, 2008

In the case of Bhajan Kaur Vs. Tarlok Singh 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 610 (P & H) dealt with alternation in the instrument and held that material alteration effected in the pronote without consent of the defendant renders the pronote without consideration. But in the present case there is no alteration/ material alteration alleged by the defendant which is not his case and has rather admitted his signatures CS No.696/11 Jyoti Gangwani Vs. P. K. Bajaj Page No. 26 of 32 on the pronote.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004

Defendant has also relied upon Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Another Vs. Indusland Bank Ltd. & Others AIR 2005 SC 439 wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that GPA holder can appear as a witness only in his personal capacity and he cannot appear as witness on behalf of the plaintiff. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff in the plaint itself that the son/ SPA CS No.696/11 Jyoti Gangwani Vs. P. K. Bajaj Page No. 9 of 32 of the plaintiff arranged the said loan amount of Rs. 2 lacs from the funds of the plaintiff and advanced the same to the defendant. It is even seen that plaintiff states that the defendant approached the plaintiff through her son namely Sh. Manish Gangwani who is the SPA of the plaintiff in the present case. Thus, it is seen that the pleadings suggest that the said loan transaction was in the personal knowledge of the SPA holder i.e. son of the plaintiff and in fact he was a participant in the said loan in as much as the request for the loan was made through him and he arranged the loan amount from the funds of the plaintiff and gave it to the defendant. In the evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1 it is deposed by the PW-1/ SPA holder that he being the son of the plaintiff has been looking after and managing the affairs of the plaintiff and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case. The other facts regarding the loan, above mentioned have also been CS No.696/11 Jyoti Gangwani Vs. P. K. Bajaj Page No. 10 of 32 deposed in the evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW 1/A. The witness PW-1 has been cross-examined upon the factum of the execution of SPA Ex PW 1/1 in his favour but nothing has come out which could disprove the execution of the said SPA Ex PW 1/1 in favour of the said Sh. Manish Gangwani PW-1. To the question regarding who were present at the time of the execution Ex PW 1/2 i.e. pronote, the witness PW-1 has answered in his cross-examination dated 18.05.2009 that the plaintiff, the defendant and he himself were present at that time. The witness PW-1 has also further deposed that at the time of signing of the pronote Ex PW 1/2 money dealing was made by the defendant. It further shows that the SPA i.e. PW-1 had personal knowledge of the said loan transaction and was present at the time of its execution and money dealing. Although PW-1 could not tell the name of the writer who had written / prepared the said pronote Ex PW 1/2 but merely that cannot CS No.696/11 Jyoti Gangwani Vs. P. K. Bajaj Page No. 11 of 32 oust him from his personal knowledge and participation in the transaction as noted above. Thus, in this case the power of attorney holder PW-1 has deposed upon the facts which are a part of transaction in question and were in his personal knowledge. Thus, there is cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it cannot be held that PW-1 was not competent to depose on behalf of plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1219 - H K Sema - Full Document
1   2 Next