https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184171 Where businessmen with mutual dealings signed a balance in the plaintiffs' ledger after adjustment of accounts, the Court accepted the stated balance as genuine because the defendants withheld their own books, gave evasive evidence, and failed to prove fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or non-explanation of accounts. The contemporaneous endorsement supported a real settlement of accounts, and adverse inference could be drawn from the non-production of the best evidence. An unconditional acknowledgment of the struck balance was treated as an implied promise to pay and, in the context of stated accounts, furnished a maintainable basis for recovery. The plaintiffs' claim was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:32:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184171 Where businessmen with mutual dealings signed a balance in the plaintiffs' ledger after adjustment of accounts, the Court accepted the stated balance as genuine because the defendants withheld their own books, gave evasive evidence, and failed to prove fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or non-explanation of accounts. The contemporaneous endorsement supported a real settlement of accounts, and adverse inference could be drawn from the non-production of the best evidence. An unconditional acknowledgment of the struck balance was treated as an implied promise to pay and, in the context of stated accounts, furnished a maintainable basis for recovery. The plaintiffs' claim was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184171