Match Negotiable Instruments Act Case Law with Principles

This section matches key legal cases concerning negotiable instruments with the principles related to presumptions and burden of proof under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Matching List - I with List - II

Case (a): Kundan Lal Rallaram Vs. Custodian

This case is aligned with principle (ii): Burden of proof of failure of consideration for a negotiable instrument. The ruling highlights the significance of proving execution and thus indirectly relates to the stages of establishing consideration.

Case (b): C.T. Joseph Vs. I.V. Phillip

This case corresponds to principle (i): Presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act arises only if the execution of the document is proved as true. It underscores that proving the execution of the instrument is a fundamental prerequisite for the presumption under Section 118 to take effect.

Case (c): A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna

This case matches principle (iii): A negotiable instrument is presumed to be drawn for consideration. This directly reflects the statutory presumption established by Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Case (d): Beni Madhavnath Vs. Jugandra Nath Balwan

This case relates to principle (iv): The statutory presumption envisaged under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act is rebuttable. The judgment confirms that the presumption of consideration is not absolute and can be challenged and disproven with adequate evidence.

Derived Code

Based on the matching of the cases with their respective legal principles:

• (a) - (ii)
• (b) - (i)
• (c) - (iii)
• (d) - (iv)

This selection forms the code (a)-(ii), (b)-(i), (c)-(iii), (d)-(iv).