1999 (2) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the initial 'evidential burden' under As. 118 of the Negotiable instruments Act has been discharged by the defendant and the presumption 'disappeared'?

Whether the burden has shifted?

Whether the plaintiff has discharged the 'legal burden' after the same was restored?

Held that:- We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that issues Nos. 1 to 3 were based upon different pleas raised in the defence. In the contextual circumstances, we find that all the three issues were based upon the plea relating to non-existence of consideration, namely, the Promissory Note allegedly having been procured by the plaintiff as a collateral security and not for the purpose which was mentioned in it namely, "for value received". The finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the case despite holding the defendant had not discharged his initial burden of proving the non-existence of consideration amounted to negating the presumption arising under Section 118(a) of the Act.