<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (10) TMI 761 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295823</link>
    <description>A signed blank or incomplete stamped promissory note remains enforceable where the document otherwise satisfies the requirements of a negotiable instrument; Section 20 gives the holder prima facie authority to complete it, and the maker cannot avoid liability merely by saying the paper was blank when signed. The presumption attached to an admitted signature or thumb impression continues unless rebutted by contrary proof. Revisional interference is justified where the trial court rests its dismissal on a patent error of law, even though revision does not permit ordinary reappreciation of evidence. On that basis, the dismissal of the suits was reversed and decrees were granted in favour of the plaintiffs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:35:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 761 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295823</link>
      <description>A signed blank or incomplete stamped promissory note remains enforceable where the document otherwise satisfies the requirements of a negotiable instrument; Section 20 gives the holder prima facie authority to complete it, and the maker cannot avoid liability merely by saying the paper was blank when signed. The presumption attached to an admitted signature or thumb impression continues unless rebutted by contrary proof. Revisional interference is justified where the trial court rests its dismissal on a patent error of law, even though revision does not permit ordinary reappreciation of evidence. On that basis, the dismissal of the suits was reversed and decrees were granted in favour of the plaintiffs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>