Promissory note
mahesan
(Querist) 21 August 2013
This query is : Resolved
A given sign and unfilled promissory note to B,
B given pronote to C
C filed suit against A
C is the plaintiff and he given evidence PW1 and Scribe given evidence PW2.
Attestor refused to receive the summon and given evidence?
What relief entitled to A?
Attestor must examined?
Any citations for A for dismissal of Suit?
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 21 August 2013
Advocate Mahesan,
A given sign and unfilled promissory note to B,
B given pronote to C
C filed suit against A
C is the plaintiff and he given evidence PW1 and Scribe given evidence PW2.
Attestor refused to receive the summon and given evidence?
What relief entitled to A?
Attestor must examined?
Any citations for A for dismissal of Suit?
A is not liable to C
As A never deliver Pro note to C.
Pro note is valid only on Delivery.
Name must hv been filled by C, in his handwriting!! so A not Liable in eithe case. It is Law, no need for citation.
mahesan
(Querist) 23 August 2013
But A admitted his signature at the time of cross examination. and trial court passed decree and judgment infavour of C?
What relief for A in this stage?
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 23 August 2013
Once signature is admitted all other endorsements have implied authority.
signature of the persons .....admitted would give rise to a presumption that they were meant to discharge a lawful debt or liability.
SUPREME COURT IN 2012 CITATION.
You had option of fraud but it was at trial stage only.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 23 August 2013
Once A admits the signature it is implied authority for all other endorsements.
Applying this theory the APEX COURT in recent judgement s for cheque cases which are also negotiable instruments have thrown all theories of part payment , blank or security cheques and turned acquittal in conviction.
A had only defense of fraud . Signature and delivery should not have been admitted .
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 August 2013
Who had obstructed you to post the fact that a decree has already been passed in favour of C against A on the basis of admission of signature made by him?
As the decree has already been pased, A need to file an appeal against that and his lawyer shall be in a better position to go to the faourable grounds thereto.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 23 August 2013
Seek and hide is a game not to be played while querying.
Your attitude is not appreciable.
When trial is over there is no occasion to ask for advices of that stage.
file appeal and that is all the advice as we do not know defence nor do have privilege to
examine perversity in the judgement of trial court.
Good byyyyyyyyyyyy!
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 23 August 2013
Adv Mahesan,
Next time train the Witness well in Advance,
Never help opposite side with your statements.
Let them prove it.
Our side must not prove, that help opposite side..
Signature should hv been denied.
u shd inform DFCREE FIRST in ur Query.
u shd ask Query, before Evidence stage to get help win your case.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 23 August 2013
He really duped us Mr. V R SHROFF!
Without knowing it would be harmful for his case only.he tried to hide he is not adept.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 23 August 2013
@ADVOCATE DEFENCE!
When signature is denied the case becomes of forgery and not of 'fraud'.
'fraud' is a condition to be pleaded and proved with what understanding signature was put?
a fine distinction must be present in the mind PLEADING FRAUD OR FORGERY!
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 23 August 2013
@ADVOCATE DEFENCE!
ALTHOUGH YOU ARE INTELLIGENT BUT WHEN EVER YOU EXPLAIN IT YOUR VERY EXPLANATION GETS EVASIVE.
CLARITY SHOULD BE OUR RULE OF SERVICE AND NOT PERSONS,NO CARE WHO THINKS WHAT,A STRAIGHT ANSWER IS THE REQUIREMENT.
Guest
(Expert) 24 August 2013
I agree with the views of Shri Prabhakar Singh ji. Further to that, even if "signature and delivery should not have been admitted," as advised by Advocate Defence, that should not be taken as granted that the court cannot order for getting the signatures verified by the handwriting expert on request by the complainant.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 24 August 2013
Well discussed and advised by the experts, Nothing more to add.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 24 August 2013
Mr Prabhakar singh.
1) The first and imp duty of the defense is to get the accused out from the rigors of criminal justice system.
2) We with our associates contest cases for accused all over country with definite results.
3) So it is imp strategy to confuse the opponent and the court and get the burden off from the accused.
SO WHY DEFENSE SHOULD BOTHER WHO SIGNED ANY DOCUMENT AS LONG AS THEY CAN RAISE PROBABLE DEFENSE THAT IT IS NOT SIGNED BY HIM / HER.
AND IT IS EASY SURE AND SIMPLE AND
AS LD EXPERT MR SHROFF HAS STATED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF COMPLAINANT TO DO WHICH IS NOT EASY.
