Skip to content


The East Indian and Anglo-Indian Deposit and Loan Society (Ld.) Vs. Dr. T.M. Nair and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ465
AppellantThe East Indian and Anglo-Indian Deposit and Loan Society (Ld.)
RespondentDr. T.M. Nair and anr.
Cases ReferredWheeler v. Young
Excerpt:
- - order 1. the question whether a cheque has been presented within a reasonable time has to be determined with regard to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers, and the facts of the particular case section 84(2), negotiable instruments act, 1881. 2. this is the same rule as is laid down in section 74(2) of the english bills of exchange act, 1882. the question is, in our opinion, clearly a question of fact, not of law......and the facts of the particular case section 84(2), negotiable instruments act, 1881.2. this is the same rule as is laid down in section 74(2) of the english bills of exchange act, 1882. the question is, in our opinion, clearly a question of fact, not of law. in england it is held that it is a question of fact for the jury to determine serle v. norton (1841) 2 mr 401; wheeler v. young (1897) 13 t.l.r. 468.3. as the question is one of fact, it is not a question which the small cause court can refer for the opinion of the high court under section 69 of the act.4. we must, therefore, decline to decide the question. costs will be provided for by the lower court's order.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The question whether a cheque has been presented within a reasonable time has to be determined with regard to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers, and the facts of the particular case Section 84(2), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. This is the same rule as is laid down in Section 74(2) of the English Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. The question is, in our opinion, clearly a question of fact, not of law. In England it is held that it is a question of fact for the Jury to determine Serle v. Norton (1841) 2 MR 401; Wheeler v. Young (1897) 13 T.L.R. 468.

3. As the question is one of fact, it is not a question which the Small Cause Court can refer for the opinion of the High Court under Section 69 of the Act.

4. We must, therefore, decline to decide the question. Costs will be provided for by the lower Court's order.


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