https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426578 The High Court upheld the District Court's decision in O.S.No.08 of 2014, ruling in favor of the respondent in a money recovery suit. The appellant's denial of borrowing money and claim that the promissory note was with a finance company were not substantiated. The court emphasized the importance of providing substantial evidence to counter legal presumptions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the claimed amount with interest, highlighting the necessity of clear and convincing evidence in financial transaction disputes. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Aug 2022 08:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426578 The High Court upheld the District Court's decision in O.S.No.08 of 2014, ruling in favor of the respondent in a money recovery suit. The appellant's denial of borrowing money and claim that the promissory note was with a finance company were not substantiated. The court emphasized the importance of providing substantial evidence to counter legal presumptions, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the claimed amount with interest, highlighting the necessity of clear and convincing evidence in financial transaction disputes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426578