https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408572 The defendant admitted signing the loan application and promissory note but argued that he had signed only as a guarantor and that the documents were later filled in by the plaintiff. The Madras HC found that the defendant failed to examine the persons said to be the real borrowers or other supporting witnesses, while the plaintiff's case was corroborated by prior notice and the documentary record. Even without drawing the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the evidence was sufficient on a balance of probabilities to prove the claim. The defendant's admissions in cross-examination and the police enquiry did not displace that evidence, so no interference with the first appellate decree was warranted. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2021 13:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408572 The defendant admitted signing the loan application and promissory note but argued that he had signed only as a guarantor and that the documents were later filled in by the plaintiff. The Madras HC found that the defendant failed to examine the persons said to be the real borrowers or other supporting witnesses, while the plaintiff's case was corroborated by prior notice and the documentary record. Even without drawing the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the evidence was sufficient on a balance of probabilities to prove the claim. The defendant's admissions in cross-examination and the police enquiry did not displace that evidence, so no interference with the first appellate decree was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408572