<?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>2008 (1) TMI 961 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199094</link>
    <description>In a summary suit based on a negotiable instrument, Order 37 permits expeditious relief only after judicial scrutiny, and a decree cannot follow mechanically on secondary material alone. The court noted that a cheque falls within the definition of a bill of exchange, but the plaintiff normally must produce the original documents or satisfactorily explain their loss before relying on secondary evidence. It also reiterated that the existence of a triable issue, or a defence that is sham or moonshine, informs the court&#039;s discretion on leave to defend. On the facts, the grant of unconditional leave to defend was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:45:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 961 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199094</link>
      <description>In a summary suit based on a negotiable instrument, Order 37 permits expeditious relief only after judicial scrutiny, and a decree cannot follow mechanically on secondary material alone. The court noted that a cheque falls within the definition of a bill of exchange, but the plaintiff normally must produce the original documents or satisfactorily explain their loss before relying on secondary evidence. It also reiterated that the existence of a triable issue, or a defence that is sham or moonshine, informs the court&#039;s discretion on leave to defend. On the facts, the grant of unconditional leave to defend was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>