Home / Supreme Court / Diary 90362/1954

SETH JAGJIVAN MAVJI VITHLANI v. MESSRS RANCHHODDAS MEGHJI.

Supreme Court of India | Diary 90362/1954

Status

Judgment

Decided On

1954-05-28

Bench

MAHAJAN MEHAR CHAND (CJ),DAS SUDHI RANJAN,BOSE VIVIAN,BHAGWATI NATWARLAL H.,AIYYAR T.L. VENKATARAMA

Petitioner

SETH JAGJIVAN MAVJI VITHLANI

Respondent

MESSRS RANCHHODDAS MEGHJI.

Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER: SETH JAGJIVAN MAVJI VITHLANI

Vs.

RESPONDENT: MESSRS RANCHHODDAS MEGHJI.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/05/1954

BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BOSE, VIVIAN BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.

CITATION: 1954 AIR 554 1955 SCR 503

ACT: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881) ss. 7, 32, 61, 64, 78-Drawee, liability of-Acceptance-Bill payable at sight -Presentment-Acceptance-Oral-Whether valid.

HEADNOTE: Under section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the liability of the drawee arises only when he accepts the bill. There is no provision in the Act that the drawee is as such liable on the instrument, the only exception being under section 31 in the case of a, drawee of a cheque having sufficient funds of the customer in his hands; and even then, the liability is only towards the drawer and not the payee. There is no substance in the contention that section 61 of the Act provides for presentment for acceptance only when the bill is payable after sight, and not when it is payable on demand. In a bill payable after sight, there are two distinct stages, 504 firstly when it is presented for acceptance, and later when it is presented for payment. Section 61 deals with the former, and section 64 with the latter. Presentment for acceptance must always and in every case precede pre...

Related

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India