<?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>1972 (11) TMI 97 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197730</link>
    <description>An unstamped or insufficiently stamped promissory note that embodies the entire loan contract cannot support recovery through proof of the original consideration, because the Stamp Act bars its admission and the Evidence Act prevents substitution of other evidence for the written contract. Recovery remains available only where the note does not contain all contractual terms and an independent basis, such as collateral security or conditional payment, is proved. Claims for money had and received, implied promise, unjust enrichment, or restitution under Section 70 of the Contract Act cannot circumvent these evidentiary and stamping bars when they depend on proving the excluded loan transaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:55:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (11) TMI 97 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197730</link>
      <description>An unstamped or insufficiently stamped promissory note that embodies the entire loan contract cannot support recovery through proof of the original consideration, because the Stamp Act bars its admission and the Evidence Act prevents substitution of other evidence for the written contract. Recovery remains available only where the note does not contain all contractual terms and an independent basis, such as collateral security or conditional payment, is proved. Claims for money had and received, implied promise, unjust enrichment, or restitution under Section 70 of the Contract Act cannot circumvent these evidentiary and stamping bars when they depend on proving the excluded loan transaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>