Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2005 (12) TMI 599 - HC - Indian Laws

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff, Orders Rs. 60,000 Repayment The appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, entitling them to the repayment of Rs. 60,000 with costs. The court found that the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiff, Orders Rs. 60,000 Repayment

                          The appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, entitling them to the repayment of Rs. 60,000 with costs. The court found that the defendants failed to provide acceptable evidence to rebut the legal presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, establishing their liability to repay the loan. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the proper application of legal principles in determining the outcome.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Whether the cheque issued by the defendants and the hand letter are supported by consideration.
                          2. Whether the defendants had obtained the loan from the plaintiff.
                          3. Whether the defendants are liable to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff.
                          4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
                          5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Whether the cheque issued by the defendants and the hand letter are supported by consideration:
                          The plaintiff argued that the cheque for Rs. 60,000 issued by the third defendant was towards repayment of a loan. The defendants contended that the cheque was issued in a different context related to a joint tender for Madras Fertilizers Limited and was not supported by consideration. The trial court wrongly placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove the passing of consideration under the cheque, despite the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that a negotiable instrument is presumed to be for consideration. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to provide acceptable evidence to rebut this presumption, thus holding that the cheque was supported by consideration.

                          2. Whether the defendants had obtained the loan from the plaintiff:
                          The plaintiff's case was that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 borrowed Rs. 60,000. The defendants denied receiving any loan and claimed that the cheque was issued for a different purpose. The appellate court noted that the trial court failed to properly consider the admissions made by the third defendant regarding the issuance and purpose of the cheque. The appellate court found that the defendants' evidence was contradictory and unreliable, reinforcing the plaintiff's claim that the loan was indeed taken.

                          3. Whether the defendants are liable to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff:
                          The trial court dismissed the suit, believing the defendants' version that the cheque was not issued for repayment of a loan but for a joint tender. The appellate court, however, found that the defendants did not discharge their burden of proving that the cheque was not supported by consideration. The appellate court held that the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, thus establishing the defendants' liability to repay the loan.

                          4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit:
                          The third defendant contested the jurisdiction of the Mayiladuthurai court, arguing that the cause of action arose in Madras. However, the appellate court did not find merit in this argument, as the trial court had already framed issues and proceeded with the case. The appellate court did not specifically address this issue in detail, implying that the jurisdiction was deemed appropriate.

                          5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled:
                          The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the repayment of Rs. 60,000 with costs, as the defendants failed to rebut the legal presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

                          Conclusion:
                          The appellate court found that the trial court had misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence and failed to properly apply the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, entitling them to the repayment of Rs. 60,000 with costs.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found