<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (7) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190221</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to fill in the blanks of the promissory note within a reasonable time, rendering the instrument invalid. The court deemed the subsequent completion of the blanks as a material alteration. Additionally, the plaintiff, a professional money lender, retaining the blank instrument for an extended period was deemed against public policy. Consequently, the suit was dismissed, with each party instructed to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (7) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190221</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to fill in the blanks of the promissory note within a reasonable time, rendering the instrument invalid. The court deemed the subsequent completion of the blanks as a material alteration. Additionally, the plaintiff, a professional money lender, retaining the blank instrument for an extended period was deemed against public policy. Consequently, the suit was dismissed, with each party instructed to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>