9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Suit maintainability based on promissory note insufficiently stamped
Analysis: 1. Background: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, claiming an amount owed by the defendant to the plaintiff's father's money-lending firm. The defendant contested the suit, arguing that the document in question was a promissory note insufficiently stamped, making the suit not maintainable. 2. Contention: The defendant admitted supervising the money-lending firm but denied having any dealings with it. He claimed the document was a promissory note not properly stamped, rendering it inadmissible in court. 3. Judgment: The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, citing the document as a promissory note insufficiently stamped, following the precedent in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshiammal. The plaintiff appealed the decision. 4. Promissory Note Analysis: The document in question contained an unconditional undertaking to pay a sum of money after two years, meeting the definition of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Stamp Act. 5. Stamp Duty: The document was found to be payable otherwise than on demand, falling under Art. 49(b) of the Stamp Act, requiring stamp duty as on a Bill of Exchange for the amount mentioned, making it insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence. 6. Legal Precedents: The court referred to previous judgments regarding promissory notes payable after a specified period, emphasizing the unconditional nature of the promise to pay as essential for classification as a promissory note. 7. Final Decision: The High Court held that the document was a promissory note but payable otherwise than on demand, lacking sufficient stamp duty. However, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Subordinate Judge's decision and remanding the suit for trial on other issues, as the plaintiff could still rely on the original cause of action based on the defendant's prior indebtedness. 8. Conclusion: The High Court overturned the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing that the plaintiff could proceed with the case based on the original cause of action despite the issue with the promissory note. The court ordered a trial on the remaining issues, granting the appellant a refund of the court fees and directing each party to bear their own costs.
|
