https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196708 In insolvency proceedings for settlement of a schedule of creditors under section 33 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, the court must decide whether the alleged debt is actually proved and may go behind the form of the transaction to test whether a real liability exists. The presumption of consideration under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a special evidentiary rule between parties to the instrument or persons claiming under them, and it does not govern proof of debt in insolvency. The creditor therefore bears the burden of proving the debt, although the court may draw an appropriate presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 where the facts justify it. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:40:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196708 In insolvency proceedings for settlement of a schedule of creditors under section 33 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, the court must decide whether the alleged debt is actually proved and may go behind the form of the transaction to test whether a real liability exists. The presumption of consideration under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a special evidentiary rule between parties to the instrument or persons claiming under them, and it does not govern proof of debt in insolvency. The creditor therefore bears the burden of proving the debt, although the court may draw an appropriate presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 where the facts justify it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196708