<?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>1932 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198384</link>
    <description>Where execution of a promissory note is admitted in the pleadings, the document has already been received in evidence and marked as an exhibit, its admissibility cannot later be reopened on stamp objections. The statutory bar under Section 36 prevents a party from challenging admissibility after exhibition, and the objection based on want of cancellation of stamp under Section 12 does not survive in that situation. The proper course is to decide the dispute on the remaining defence, here discharge, rather than dismiss the suit for alleged inadmissibility of the instrument. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable and the matter required fresh disposal on the merits of the defence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:05:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=506623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (4) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198384</link>
      <description>Where execution of a promissory note is admitted in the pleadings, the document has already been received in evidence and marked as an exhibit, its admissibility cannot later be reopened on stamp objections. The statutory bar under Section 36 prevents a party from challenging admissibility after exhibition, and the objection based on want of cancellation of stamp under Section 12 does not survive in that situation. The proper course is to decide the dispute on the remaining defence, here discharge, rather than dismiss the suit for alleged inadmissibility of the instrument. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable and the matter required fresh disposal on the merits of the defence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>