Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : R.Barathbaran (Died) Vs R. Nallathambi (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : S.A.Nos.142 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/03/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

R.Barathbaran (Died) Vs R. Nallathambi (Madras High Court)

There is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature and thump impression has to be obtained for a pro-note and the lower Appellate Judge has totally misguided and misused the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding burden of proof and not even followed basic rudimentary of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Pending suit, in IA, the plaintiff has obtained attachment before judgment. On erroneous application, the lower Appellate Court has allowed the suit and granted suspension of order for attachment before judgement.

Thus I find that the lower Appellate Court has erred in law in rejecting the plaintiff’s right to fill up the suit promissory notes under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereupon the holder is authorized to fill up the blanks and to negotiate the instrument for a certain amount and the “execution” of cheque and “issuance” of cheque, viz., Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 in his written statement and in his evidence before the Court, the lower Appellate Court is not right in raising suspicion with regard to the execution merely on the ground that the thump impression of the defendant was not obtained in Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, particularly, when the defendant has not denied the execution.

Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of DW3 is too inform to discharge onus of proof as stated, the statutory provision under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The approach adopted by the lower Appellate Court is condemnable. The finding rendered by the lower Appellate Court that suit pro-note is not valid in the absence of thumb impression is sustainable in law, more so, when the defendant has not disputed the signature and hence, all the Substantial Questions of Law are answered in affirmative in favour of the appellant/plaintiff against the defendant/respondent.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031