https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272699 A negotiable instrument carries a presumption of consideration under section 118(a), and the majority treated that presumption as a substantive rule of equity, justice and good conscience capable of application even where the Act was not then in force. The court also held that the presumption does not vanish when both sides lead evidence; it must be weighed with the whole record, and the party denying consideration must disprove it. On the facts, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption sufficiently, so the appeal failed. The dissent viewed the burden of proof as decisive where neither version was convincing and would have partly allowed the appeal. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2018 12:16:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272699 A negotiable instrument carries a presumption of consideration under section 118(a), and the majority treated that presumption as a substantive rule of equity, justice and good conscience capable of application even where the Act was not then in force. The court also held that the presumption does not vanish when both sides lead evidence; it must be weighed with the whole record, and the party denying consideration must disprove it. On the facts, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption sufficiently, so the appeal failed. The dissent viewed the burden of proof as decisive where neither version was convincing and would have partly allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Mar 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272699