https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300230 In a suit for recovery on a dishonoured cheque issued towards an existing debt, limitation was stated to run from the date of dishonour because the right to sue arises only then, not on the cheque date; Article 113 of the Limitation Act and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act were relied on to reject the contrary argument. For secondary evidence of a lost negotiable instrument, the Court applied the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act and required a proper foundation explaining non-production of the original; on the pleaded facts, the loss and non-possession were held sufficiently accounted for, so the objection was not fatal. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:36:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300230 In a suit for recovery on a dishonoured cheque issued towards an existing debt, limitation was stated to run from the date of dishonour because the right to sue arises only then, not on the cheque date; Article 113 of the Limitation Act and the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act were relied on to reject the contrary argument. For secondary evidence of a lost negotiable instrument, the Court applied the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act and required a proper foundation explaining non-production of the original; on the pleaded facts, the loss and non-possession were held sufficiently accounted for, so the objection was not fatal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300230