https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109273 A discharged bankers receipt and the promisee's acceptance of an alternative receipt created a rebuttable presumption that the original obligation had been satisfied. The burden shifted to the promisee to prove any conditional discharge, but no evidence rebutted that presumption and no explanation was given for accepting the third-party receipt. Section 41 of the Indian Contract Act was held inapplicable because there was no actual performance by the third party, while Section 63 applied because the promisee accepted another satisfaction in place of the original obligation. The obligor was therefore discharged and the original claim could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109273 A discharged bankers receipt and the promisee's acceptance of an alternative receipt created a rebuttable presumption that the original obligation had been satisfied. The burden shifted to the promisee to prove any conditional discharge, but no evidence rebutted that presumption and no explanation was given for accepting the third-party receipt. Section 41 of the Indian Contract Act was held inapplicable because there was no actual performance by the third party, while Section 63 applied because the promisee accepted another satisfaction in place of the original obligation. The obligor was therefore discharged and the original claim could not be sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109273