<?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>2021 (8) TMI 376 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410798</link>
    <description>Once execution of a promissory note is admitted, the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies in favour of the holder. The defendant&#039;s plea that the note was signed on a blank instrument for security in a chit transaction was not supported by independent oral or documentary evidence, and minor inconsistencies in the plaintiff&#039;s witnesses did not dislodge the presumption. The party denying liability must rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities, and that burden was not discharged here. The first appellate court was therefore wrong to reverse the decree on that basis, and the suit stood decreed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 08:57:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 376 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410798</link>
      <description>Once execution of a promissory note is admitted, the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies in favour of the holder. The defendant&#039;s plea that the note was signed on a blank instrument for security in a chit transaction was not supported by independent oral or documentary evidence, and minor inconsistencies in the plaintiff&#039;s witnesses did not dislodge the presumption. The party denying liability must rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities, and that burden was not discharged here. The first appellate court was therefore wrong to reverse the decree on that basis, and the suit stood decreed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>