| Case ID |
16357c29-1442-48f7-92f5-078c71954475 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.317-L of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 06, 2023 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 06, 2023 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions regarding the admissibility of the promissory note. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the promissory note and the payment of consideration. The evidence suggested that the defendant had thumb-marked blank papers which were later converted into a promissory note without his consent or knowledge. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and reiterated that the presence of witnesses and proper stamping is crucial for the enforceability of such instruments. |
| Summary |
This case illustrates the complexities surrounding the enforceability of promissory notes under Pakistani law, particularly with respect to the requirements outlined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Supreme Court ruled that the promissory note in question was inadmissible due to the lack of proper evidence supporting its execution and validity. The court highlighted the necessity for clear, unequivocal proof when asserting claims based on negotiable instruments, especially in cases involving allegations of forgery. This ruling underscores the critical nature of due diligence in financial transactions and the importance of legal representation to navigate the intricacies of contract law. The decision serves as a vital reference for legal practitioners dealing with similar cases, emphasizing the need for thorough documentation and adherence to statutory requirements. Keywords: promissory note, Negotiable Instruments Act, legal representation, forgery, enforceability. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Munib Akhtar,
Shahid Waheed,
Musarrat Hilali
|
| Lawyers |
Mrs. Tabinda Islam,
Mian Shah Abbas
|
| Petitioners |
Mehr NOOR MUHAMMAD
|
| Respondents |
NAZIR AHMED
|
| Citations |
2024 SLD 91,
2024 PLD 45
|
| Other Citations |
Shiekh Muhammad Shakeel v. Shiekh Hafiz Muhammad Aslam 2014 SCMR 1562,
Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Boota PLJ 2016 SC 169,
January v. Goodman 1 U.S 2008 (1787),
Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana AIR 1961 SC 1655,
Rehmat Ali v. Wahid Bux NLR 1979 Civil (SC) 809,
Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. v. Hafiz Muhammad Siddique PLD 1978 SC 279,
Johnson v. The Duke of Marlborough (2 Stark. Rep 313),
Henman v. Dickinson (5 Bing. 183),
Simpson v. Stackhouse (9 Barr. 186),
Galloway v. United States 319 US 372,
Popken v. Formers Mut. HomesIns. Co. 180 Neb.250
|
| Laws Involved |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Stamp Act, of 1899
|
| Sections |
4,
17(2)(a),
2(5)(b),
36
|