Clicquot Asia Limited vs Red Robin International Ltd. on 24 February, 2005
21. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bhagirath v. Gulabkanwar and othrs, reported in 1956 Rajasthan 174. The Rajasthan High Court has held that the provisions of Section 78 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not prescribe any other person except the holder of promissory note or bill of exchange to maintain a suit. It has been held that what section 78 really appears is that a payment in order to act as a full discharge of the instrument, must be made to the holder or as provided under section 82(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and it does not deal with the right to bring a suit. In my opinion, even the said judgment has no relevance for the simple reason because in the present case I am not considering whether there is any prohibition contained under section 78 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for giving clear discharge or not. I am in the present case considering only the issue whether for maintaining a proceeding re-endorsement is necessary.