Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Palaniappa Mills Rep. By Its vs A.Vaithiyalingam on 13 December, 2010

He Relied Upon Judgement In The Cases Of ... vs . Vinkar on 28 January, 2022

27. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the above mentioned judgements, it is clear that a cheque can be negotiated or transferred by making an explicit endorsement either on the instrument itself or on a separate paper annexed thereto and admittedly, in the absence of such requisite endorsement qua the cheques in issue in the present case, it cannot be said that the cheques in issue were endorsed by the payee in favour of the complainant and thus the complainant does not get the status of a payee or of the holder in due course qua the cheques in issue.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Easwaramoorthy vs M/S.Premier Textiles on 25 November, 2011

DCC 110) and Palaniappa Mills v. A.Vaithiyalingam ((2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 299) has laid down that mere signature of drawee on reverse or overleaf of cheque without any details is not sufficient to constitute proper endorsement and the complainant cannot be considered as holder much less holder in due course, so as to maintain any complaint. Applying the same ratio herein, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of one such legally valid endorsement, the mere signature would not be sufficient to prove negotiation by endorsement as required under law and the same does not create any privity of contract between the complainant and the accused, so as to maintain any criminal action for any offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. Thus, want of any written endorsement over the cheque leaf to constitute valid endorsement as required under Sections 48 and 50 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and want of further proof to prove the factum of discounting would compel this Court not to recognise the complainant as holder in due course under law and complainant to lodge the complaint and the same renders the complaint arising out of which are the present appeals, to be legally not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - K B Vasuki - Full Document
1