1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Promissory note date alteration deemed material, rendering it unenforceable. Revision petition granted in favor of petitioner.</h1> The court held that the alteration in the date of the promissory note constituted a material alteration, rendering the note unenforceable under Section 87 ... - Issues:1. Material alteration in the promissory note2. Validity of the endorsement of payment on the promissory note3. Plea of discharge set up by the respondentsDetailed Analysis:1. The revision petition was filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dismissing the suit for recovery of a sum due under a promissory note. The respondents contended that the promissory note had been materially altered, rendering it unenforceable. The court considered whether the alteration in the date of the promissory note constituted a material alteration as per Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Citing legal precedents, the court held that the alteration was material, making the promissory note unenforceable. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that he should be granted relief based on the original cause of action, emphasizing that the suit was not based on that cause of action.2. The court examined the validity of an endorsement of payment made on the promissory note. The respondents disputed the authenticity of the endorsement and alleged forgery. The court referred to legal authorities to determine the implications of such endorsements on negotiable instruments. It was established that the petitioner failed to prove that a third party was responsible for the alteration, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's contention regarding the endorsement of payment.3. The plea of discharge raised by the respondents was another crucial issue. The respondents claimed that they had paid the debt in full three years prior. The court analyzed the legal implications of such a plea and found that the acknowledgment of part payment under a renewed promissory note could be utilized for limitation purposes under the Limitation Act. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, decreeing the suit in favor of the petitioner for the principal amount with interest. The costs were awarded against the respondents, except for one respondent who had been dismissed from the revision petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
