<?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>2024 (3) TMI 171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450390</link>
    <description>Proof of execution of a promissory note attracts the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendants to rebut it. Here, the signatures were proved through witness evidence and the defendants produced no material to disprove execution or consideration, so the presumption remained unrebutted. A non-impleading objection concerning the defendants&#039; son, not raised at the earliest stage, was treated as waived under Order I Rule 13 CPC and, being non-jurisdictional, could not justify reversal under Section 99 CPC. An alleged criminal acquittal, not proved by record, did not control the civil suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2024 08:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450390</link>
      <description>Proof of execution of a promissory note attracts the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the defendants to rebut it. Here, the signatures were proved through witness evidence and the defendants produced no material to disprove execution or consideration, so the presumption remained unrebutted. A non-impleading objection concerning the defendants&#039; son, not raised at the earliest stage, was treated as waived under Order I Rule 13 CPC and, being non-jurisdictional, could not justify reversal under Section 99 CPC. An alleged criminal acquittal, not proved by record, did not control the civil suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>