Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sh. Vijay Singh & Ors vs Smt. Manali Malik & Ors on 5 May, 2009
28. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Singh & Ors vs
Smt. Manali Malik & Ors, 2009 (160) DLT 259, has held that
"13. It is to be noted that the drawing of a cheque does not by
itself operate as an assignment of the monies in the hands of the
banker in favour of the payee. The holder of a cheque has no right
to enforce payment from the bank unless the banker has
contracted with the holder to honour. The banker is only liable to
the order of the drawer and thus if there is no order of the drawer
on the banker, on the date of the presentment owing to the death
of the drawer, the bank is not liable to pay. Section 57 provides
that the legal representatives of a deceased person cannot
negotiate by delivery only a cheque payable to order and endorsed
by the deceased but not delivered. This is on the ground that the
legal representative is not the agent of deceased. Upon demise, the
estate including the amounts with the bank vest in the legal
representatives or nominee and it requires a fresh act on the part
of the legal representative or nominee to transfer the money, if
any. Only if the cheque had been signed by the legal
representative, at the instance of holder thereof does the legal
representative becomes personally liable thereunder, under
Section 29 of the Act.
Canara Bank vs Canara Sales Corporation & Ors on 22 April, 1987
16. Closer home, in Canara Bank Vs. Canara Sales Corporation
MANU/SC/0904/1987 it has been held that a cheque on which the
CS SCj No. 610908/16 Ms. Medha Mohan Vs. Anupama Juneja 15/18
signatures of the account holder are forged is not cheque in as
much as it is no order/mandate of the drawer to the banker to pay
the money.
Bihta Co-Operative Development Cane ... vs The Bank Of Bihar & Ors on 12 October, 1966
To the same effect is Bihta Cooperative Development
Cane Marketing Union Ltd. and Anr. v. The Bank of Bihar AIR
1967 SC 389.
Suresh Kumar Joon vs Mool Chand Motors & Ors. on 22 August, 2012
In Suresh Kumar Joon
vs Mool Chand Motors & Ors. decided on 22 August, 2012, Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi has observed that
"8. It is true that the cheque does not contain an express promise
in writing, to pay the amount of the cheque to the payee or the
cheque. However, Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act makes it
very clear that the promise can be express as well as implied. In
my view, when a debtor issues a cheque to his creditor, he makes
an implied promise to him to pay the amount of the cheque being
issued by him. It is only towards fulfillment of that such promise
that a cheque is issued by the debtor to the creditor. Once it is
alleged that the relationship between the parties was that of debtor
and a creditor and it is further alleged that the cheque was issued
by the debtor to the creditor, it would be difficult to dispute that a
cheque contains an implied promise, in writing, to pay the amount
of the cheque.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Jagmail Singh And Anr vs Karamjit Singh And Ors on 9 January, 2017
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagmail Singh & Anr vs
Karamjit Singh & Ors, Civil Appeal no 1889 of 2020, held that
"11. A perusal of Section 65 makes it clear that secondary
evidence may be given with regard to existence, condition
or the contents of a document when the original is shown
or appears to be in possession or power against whom the
document is sought to be produced, or of any person out of
reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of
any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after
notice mentioned in Section 66 such person does not
produce it. It is a settled position of law that for secondary
evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be
given being the reasons as to why the original Evidence has
not been furnished.