Skip to content


Partab Chand Ratan Chand Vs. Gilbert - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All695
AppellantPartab Chand Ratan Chand
RespondentGilbert
Excerpt:
- - 5. the decree will not be drawn up until this sum has been made good......of the learned subordinate judge of allahabad. the plaintiff negotiated for the payee five post-dated cheques for consideration before the date of payment. the total value of the cheques was rs. 1,000. they were dishonoured on presentation. he sues the drawer of those cheques. one would have imagined that the case was as simple as it possibly could be. yet the learned judge in the lower appellate court has entered into a long discussion as to the construction of section 6, negotiable instruments act, and has come to the conclusion that a proper construction of section 6 is that a post-dated cheque is not a valid negotiable instrument. if the learned judge were right one of the most common methods of financing commercial operations would be suddenly put an end to. a cheque, as section.....
Judgment:

Young, J.

1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Allahabad. The plaintiff negotiated for the payee five post-dated cheques for consideration before the date of payment. The total value of the cheques was Rs. 1,000. They were dishonoured on presentation. He sues the drawer of those cheques. One would have imagined that the case was as simple as it possibly could be. Yet the learned Judge in the lower appellate Court has entered into a long discussion as to the construction of Section 6, Negotiable Instruments Act, and has come to the conclusion that a proper construction of Section 6 is that a post-dated cheque is not a valid negotiable instrument. If the learned Judge were right one of the most common methods of financing commercial operations would be suddenly put an end to. A cheque, as Section 6 says, is a bill of exchange drawn in a special manner. But it is a bill of exchange none the less and as a bill of exchange it is negotiable : see Carpenter v. Street (1980) 9 L.T.R. 410. The mere fact that the date of payment of a cheque is postponed to a future date does not make the cheque payable 'otherwise than on demand.' It is payable on demand after the due date. The plaintiff being the holder in due course of a negotiable instrument without notice of any defect, is entitled to payment from the drawer. As the defendant stopped payment of the cheque notice of dishonour was unnecessary. The appeal must be allowed with costs throughout. The decree of the trial Court is restored. There is a deficiency due from the defendant of Rs. 5. The decree will not be drawn up until this sum has been made good. If the appellant pays Rs. 5, the amount will be included in the decree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //