https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290597 A firm may sue on a promissory note and the underlying loan where the holder of the note is before the court and can give a valid discharge; Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was read as governing payment to the holder, not as barring a suit by the real owner of the debt. The court also treated the claim as founded on an agreement to repay after thirty days, so limitation ran from breach of that promise under Article 115 of the Limitation Act rather than from the date of advance. On both points, the objection failed and the decree for the plaintiff was sustained. en-us Wed, 13 Jul 1927 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2020 16:27:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290597 A firm may sue on a promissory note and the underlying loan where the holder of the note is before the court and can give a valid discharge; Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was read as governing payment to the holder, not as barring a suit by the real owner of the debt. The court also treated the claim as founded on an agreement to repay after thirty days, so limitation ran from breach of that promise under Article 115 of the Limitation Act rather than from the date of advance. On both points, the objection failed and the decree for the plaintiff was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Jul 1927 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290597