<?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>1970 (11) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456169</link>
    <description>A promissory note containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a definite sum after a specified future period is payable otherwise than on demand. It therefore requires the applicable stamp duty and, if insufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence under the Stamp Act. However, inadmissibility does not prevent a creditor from suing on an independently existing antecedent debt. Where the instrument acknowledges that the debtor had already received the money, the prior liability may be proved as the original cause of action without varying the instrument&#039;s terms through oral evidence. The suit may accordingly proceed on the antecedent debt despite exclusion of the promissory note.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:16:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (11) TMI 114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456169</link>
      <description>A promissory note containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a definite sum after a specified future period is payable otherwise than on demand. It therefore requires the applicable stamp duty and, if insufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence under the Stamp Act. However, inadmissibility does not prevent a creditor from suing on an independently existing antecedent debt. Where the instrument acknowledges that the debtor had already received the money, the prior liability may be proved as the original cause of action without varying the instrument&#039;s terms through oral evidence. The suit may accordingly proceed on the antecedent debt despite exclusion of the promissory note.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>