<?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>1939 (8) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301959</link>
    <description>Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was strictly construed to mean that discharge of a promissory note can be given only by the payee or holder. A plaintiff who was neither payee nor holder could not rely on an alleged beneficial ownership or benami arrangement to obtain a decree against the maker, and the trial court&#039;s refusal to grant relief was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2022 17:30:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1939 (8) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301959</link>
      <description>Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was strictly construed to mean that discharge of a promissory note can be given only by the payee or holder. A plaintiff who was neither payee nor holder could not rely on an alleged beneficial ownership or benami arrangement to obtain a decree against the maker, and the trial court&#039;s refusal to grant relief was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>