https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375385 An affidavit-cum-undertaking was treated as an admitted and final document, so the loan figure could not be re-opened after earlier litigation on the same issue, and res judicata barred further challenge. Oral evidence could not vary the written terms because the alleged lower understanding was inconsistent with the document and hit by the exclusion rule against contradicting a written contract. On repayment, only part payment of Rs. 1,30,000 was accepted on the evidence, while an alleged cash payment remained unproved and a payment made in settlement of cheque proceedings was held to relate to a separate liability. The balance loan liability therefore remained enforceable. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Feb 2019 07:29:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375385 An affidavit-cum-undertaking was treated as an admitted and final document, so the loan figure could not be re-opened after earlier litigation on the same issue, and res judicata barred further challenge. Oral evidence could not vary the written terms because the alleged lower understanding was inconsistent with the document and hit by the exclusion rule against contradicting a written contract. On repayment, only part payment of Rs. 1,30,000 was accepted on the evidence, while an alleged cash payment remained unproved and a payment made in settlement of cheque proceedings was held to relate to a separate liability. The balance loan liability therefore remained enforceable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375385