SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ker) 141

PAREED PILLAY
Commercial Financiers – Appellant
Versus
Thressia – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Plaintiff is the appellant Plaintiff discounted cheque dated 20-8-1977 for Rs.10,000/- drawn by K. J. Mathai on Canara Bank, Kothamangalam through the 8th defendant. The cheque was presented by the plaintiff to the Canara Bank, on 12-10-1977. It was dishonoured. Defendants 1 to 7 are the legal representatives of Mathai. Additional defendants 9 to 12 are the legal representatives of the 8th defendant.

2. Defendants 1 to 7 contended interalia that the plaintiff did not advance Rs. 10,000/- to Mathai through the 8th defendant. All the findings by the trial Court were in favour of the plaintiff except the one that the suit is not maintainable as no notice of dishonour under S.93 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was given to the defendants.

3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether a notice of dishonour is mandatory to the drawer of a cheque in a case where the cheque was dishonoured on presentation. The Court below obviously overlooked S.98(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is in evidence that, the cheque when presented by the plaintiff was returned with the endorsement "refer to drawer". What is meant by "refer to drawer" is stated in Parthasa









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top