<?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>2002 (2) TMI 1358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302898</link>
    <description>Admission of signature on a stamped but incomplete promissory note gives the holder prima facie authority to complete the instrument within the stamp limit, and the defendant cannot avoid liability merely because the remaining contents were filled in later. The admitted signature also shifts the evidentiary burden to the defendant to prove fabrication or absence of consideration, with the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof rules under the Evidence Act operating in the plaintiff&#039;s favour. On this reasoning, the promissory note was treated as enforceable and the concurrent dismissals were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:44:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302898</link>
      <description>Admission of signature on a stamped but incomplete promissory note gives the holder prima facie authority to complete the instrument within the stamp limit, and the defendant cannot avoid liability merely because the remaining contents were filled in later. The admitted signature also shifts the evidentiary burden to the defendant to prove fabrication or absence of consideration, with the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof rules under the Evidence Act operating in the plaintiff&#039;s favour. On this reasoning, the promissory note was treated as enforceable and the concurrent dismissals were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>