Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.30 seconds)
Vishnupant S/O Chaburao Khaire vs Kailash S/O Balbhir Madan on 25 January, 2010 cites

Punjab & Sindh Bank vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd And Ors on 17 September, 2001

18. Next case relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Deshpande is Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2001 (4) ALL MR 474 (S.C.). In that case, it was the submission of the accused that the complainant was not the holder in due course unless endorsement was made on the instrument in the manner prescribed under Section 50 of the N.I. Act. While dealing with this issue in paragraphs 21 to 23, it is observed that Section 142 of the N.I. Act envisages a complaint to be made in writing "either by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be. It was further observed that Section 8 of the Act defines the "holder" as any person entitled in his own name to the possession of the cheque and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto. It was held that the complainant-bank was well within its right to possess the cheque and to receive or recover the amount covered by the instrument. In paragraph 22, reference was made to Section 118(g) of the Act which mandates that until the contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course and thus there is no escape for the Court from drawing such presumption. It was held in paragraph 23 that it was undisputed that the complainant-company ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:33:04 ::: 13 was the holder of the instrument in its own right and as such it could be holder in due course also until the concerned party adduces evidence to rebut the presumption.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 55 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next