Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

If therefore the payee of the draft or his endorsee satisfies the bank to which the draft is addressed about his own identity and about the correctness of the endorsement on which he relies and presents the draft so as to be able to give an effective discharge the bank is bound to pay the money even if it has received instructions from the purchaser requesting it to stop the payment.

13. But it does not follow from the above that a draft cannot be countermanded or its payment stopped in any circumstances. The difficulty in countermanding or stopping payment of the draft can arise only when the draft had already passed into the hands of the payee or had been endorsed in favour of another person. Delivery is one of the essential ingredients of the making, acceptance or endorsement of a negotiable instrument. The contract on a negotiable instrument is without delivery incomplete and revocable. It is therefore only after delivery that the payee of the draft can claim any rights in respect of it and become entitled as a holder to receive or recover its amount.

14. The case of AIR 1945 Lah 213 (supra) on which the learned Civil Judge has placed reliance in support of his view that after a draft had been Issued by the bank it is not open to the purchaser to stop its payment does not really go to that length and does not lay down that a person cannot stop the payment of a draft even before it has been delivered to the payee. In that case Malik Nawazish Ali, son of Malik Barkat Ali, had accepted a job of the Manager of a tea company and had been required to furnish a security of Rs. 5,000/-.

Malik Barkat Ali who had purchased the draft telegraphed to the Dacca Branch of the Imperial Bank asking to stop its payment. He also went to the Lahore Branch which had issued the draft and asked the Manager to arrange that the payment was stopped at the Dacca Branch. After the telegram of Malik Barkat Ali had been received by the Dacca Branch but before any instructions could be received from the Lahore Branch the draft which had by that time been endorsed in favour of the Comilla Banking Corporation by the payee was presented for payment at the Dacca Branch.

While considering the effect of this decision it should not be forgotten that the draft in that case had been handed over to the payee and had in fact been endorsed by that payee in favour of another person who had presented it for payment. The position would not have been exactly the same had Malik Barkat Ali retained the draft in his own hands and had not sent it to the payee. The case is therefore not an authority for the proposition that a purchaser cannot stop the payment of the draft and get back the amount even if the draft has not passed out of his hands and delivered to the payee.