1989 (10) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Adv. JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. The plaintiff filed the suit on the strength of a dishonoured cheque, exhibit A-1, for Rs. 4,000 and interest thereon. His case is that when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured as per exhibit A-2 memo. The defendant contended that he owed Rs. 1,000 to DW-2, Sadasivan, that on June 18, 1975, he and DW-2 approached the plaintiff and demanded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., particularly in view of the fact that the defendant has admitted his signature in the cheque. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that as the cheque is not admitted by the defendant, the burden to prove its execution is upon the plaintiff and as both the courts, on appreciation of evidence, held that the evidence on his side is not reliable, no presumption can be drawn. 4. The presump....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eque, was denied by the defendant and as the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was found unsatisfactory, the court cannot draw a presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act. In a case where the defendant has admitted execution of a negotiable instrument, it is entirely upon him to prove lack of consideration and there is no burden on the plaintiff to establish adequate consideration. In such a....