https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274036 A promissory note showing a later insertion of the date in different ink was treated as a material alteration under negotiable instruments law. Because the party relying on the instrument failed to explain the alteration or show consent or common intention, the note was held void and unenforceable. The court further held that, where the claim was founded solely on that promissory note and the alleged loan was contemporaneous with it, no alternative basis for recovery could be sustained on the pleadings and proof. The decree was therefore reversed and the suit claim failed in full. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:02:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274036 A promissory note showing a later insertion of the date in different ink was treated as a material alteration under negotiable instruments law. Because the party relying on the instrument failed to explain the alteration or show consent or common intention, the note was held void and unenforceable. The court further held that, where the claim was founded solely on that promissory note and the alleged loan was contemporaneous with it, no alternative basis for recovery could be sustained on the pleadings and proof. The decree was therefore reversed and the suit claim failed in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274036