2006 (10) TMI 515 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves two appeals against a common judgment in O.S. No. 219 of 1991 and O.S. No. 242 of 1991, where the defendant is the appellant in both cases.

O.S. No. 219 of 1991:
Plaintiff sought a decree for Rs. 31,624/- with costs and interest based on a promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant denied payment and claimed the plaintiff was not a bonafide holder. Trial Court held in favor of the plaintiff.

O.S. No. 242 of 1991:
Similar to the first case, the plaintiff sought a decree for Rs. 31,712.50 with costs and interest based on another promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant raised similar defenses as in the first case. Trial Court also ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Points for determination:
1. Whether the promissory notes lacked consideration.
2. Whether the assignment of the promissory notes to the plaintiff was valid, making him a "holder in due course."

Analysis:
The defendant argued that the promissory notes were not supported by consideration and were executed as security. The plaintiff contended that the notes were valid and assigned to him for valuable consideration. The defendant's claims of lack of consideration were not substantiated.

The plaintiff provided evidence of valid assignments and payment of consideration, making him a "holder in due course." Legal precedents supported the plaintiff's rights as a holder in due course under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion:
The Court found in favor of the plaintiff, dismissing the appeals and upholding the Trial Court's decision. The defendant was held liable to pay the amounts due under the promissory notes to the plaintiff.