https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772722 A suit founded on a negotiable instrument required proof of the loan and cheque execution, and the oral and documentary evidence was treated as sufficient to establish the borrowing and issuance of the cheque despite minor inconsistencies. A later payment of Rs. 2 lakh was held to relate to the same liability because no separate earlier transaction was pleaded or proved, so the amount had to be deducted from the principal claim. On interest, the special rule in Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied to a suit on a negotiable instrument where no rate was specified, rather than the general rule in Section 34 CPC; the trial court's interest award was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772722 A suit founded on a negotiable instrument required proof of the loan and cheque execution, and the oral and documentary evidence was treated as sufficient to establish the borrowing and issuance of the cheque despite minor inconsistencies. A later payment of Rs. 2 lakh was held to relate to the same liability because no separate earlier transaction was pleaded or proved, so the amount had to be deducted from the principal claim. On interest, the special rule in Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applied to a suit on a negotiable instrument where no rate was specified, rather than the general rule in Section 34 CPC; the trial court's interest award was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772722