Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, R. S. Bachawat
MANICK CHAND BAGRI - Appellant
Versus
CHARTERED BANK - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 55 Of 1958
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 1960
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 - SECTION 7 - ACCEPTANCE OF BILL OF EXCHANGE - SIGNATURE OF DRAWEE ON BACK OF BILL - SUFFICIENT ACCEPTANCE - NO ADDITIONAL WORDS REQUIRED.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent Chartered Bank claimed Rs. 28904/2/- as the holder of a hundi against the respondent Dawoodayal Kothari as the drawer and the appellant Manick Chand Bagri as the alleged acceptor of the hundi. The defendants filed separate written statements denying their liability. Dawoodayal Kothari did not contest the suit at the hearing. Manick Chand Bagri contested the suit but the learned trial Judge decreed the suit against both the defendants. Manick Chand Bagri preferred this appeal from the decree Passed against him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the signature of the drawee on the back of the hundi was a sufficient acceptance of the bill and that no additional words were required. The Court also held that the drawee could accept the bill through his agent and that in this case, the drawee had accepted the bill through his agent, Hari Shankar Tewari.
Issues: 1. Whether the signature of the drawee on the back of the hundi was a sufficient acceptance of the bill? 2. Whether the drawee could accept the bill through his agent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the signature of the drawee on the back of the hundi was a sufficient acceptance of the bill because: * Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires the drawee to sign his assent upon the bill in order to become an acceptor. * An unqualified signature by the drawee on the bill without additional words is a sufficient signature of his assent on the bill. * In this case, the drawee had signed the back of the hundi without any additional words. 2. The Court held that the drawee could accept the bill through his agent because: * Section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that every person capable of binding himself or of being bound, as mentioned in Section 26 of the Act, may so bind himself or be bound by a duly authorised agent acting in his name. * Section 27 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that an agent who signs his name on a bill of exchange without indicating thereon that he signs as agent, or without indicating that he does not intend thereby to incur personal responsibility is liable personally on the instrument. * In this case, the drawee's agent, Hari Shankar Tewari, had signed the back of the hundi "for Manick Chand Bagri".
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent Chartered Bank claiming Rs. 28904/2/- as the holder of a hundi against the respondent Dawoodayal Kothari as the drawer and the appellant Manick Chand Bagri as the alleged acceptor of the hundi. The defendants filed separate writ ten statements denying their liability. Dawoodayal Kothari did not contest the suit at the hearing. Manik Chand Bagri contested the suit but the learned trial Judge decreed the suit against both the defendants. Manik Chand Bagri has preferred this appeal from the decree Passed against him. On the 3rd February, 1950, Sadasukh Gambhirchand of Bombay drew a darshani hundi on A Bill of Exchange payable at sight for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- on Manick Chand Bagri at Calcutta. in favour of the respondent Chartered Bank. On the top of the hundi the drawer wrote the following words: "please accept the hundi according to the terms written". On the back of the hundi the following words appear in print: "pay in full Rs. 25,000/- four times of Rs. 6000/- and a quarter-half of the half thereof. " One Basdeo Chowbey a darwan in the employ of the bank presented the hundi at the Gadi of Manik Chand Bagri at Calcutta on the 7th February, 1950. It is common case that on that date one Harisankar Tewari, an employee of Manick Chand, put his signature and date 7-2-50' on the back of the hundi. On the top of the signature he affixed a rubber stamp reading: "for Manick Chand Bagri". The case of the Bank is that by the aforesaid signature Tewari accepted the hundi on behalf of Manick Chand. Manick Chand denies that Tewari had any authority to accept the hundi on his behalf or that Tewari accepted the hundi. His case further is that Tewari affixed his signature on the hundi solely for the purpose of enabling Basdeo to satisfy the Bank authorities that the hundi was duly presented for payment.
( 2 ) THE evidence on the record establishes the following facts: Originally the defendant Dawoodayal Kothari and one Kastur Chand Kothari used to carry on a business in co-partnership under the name and style of Sadasukh Gambhirchand in Bombay. Kastur Chand Kothari thed on the 19th January, 1950. On the 3rd February, 1950, when the hundi in suit was drawn the defendant Dawoodayal Kothari was the sole surviving "partner of Sadasukh Gambhirchand. On the 3rd February, 1950, the hundi was sent by the drawer Sadasukh Gambhirchand to the Chartered Bank with a covering letter requesting the Bank to credit the amount of the hundi to the account of the drawer with the Bank. The Bank discounted the hundi and allowed the drawer to cash a cheque for Rs. 25000/-against the hundi. The hundi was then sent by the Bombay office of the Bank to its Calcutta office for collection. On the 6th February, 1950, one Basdeo Chowbey a collecting Jamadar in the employ of the Bank went to the gaddi of Manick Chand at 32 Cross Street, Calcutta with the hundi. He presented the hundi to one of the Babus in the gaddi together with a memo, giving the particulars of the hundi. The Babu retained the memo and told Chowbey that he would ask his master and send the money if it is feasible (See Basdeo Q. 20 and 57 ). On the 7th February, 1950, Basdeo again went to the gaddi of Manick Chand with the hundi and a fresh memo. On reaching the place he presented the memo and the hundi to Harishanker Tewari. Manick Chand Eagri was present at the gaddi. After showing the hundi to Manick Chand and making enquires of him. Tewari said that the memo was taken, then put his signature on the hundi and added that the money would be sent. The memo was retained by Tewari and Basdeo came back with the hundi. Basdeo stated that the parties who were to make payment to the Bank used to sign the papers which were presented to them. In answer to a question put in cross-examination whether he told Tewari that he must get Tewari's signature to satisfy the Bank authorities that he had brought the hundi to Tewari and whethe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
