Skip to main content

Cheque is invalid if there is uncertainty as to the amount written in words

In M/s Shree Tyres vs State, revision petition was filed before the Delhi Sessions Court for setting aside order dated 06.06.2019 passed by Ld. MM whereby the ld MM had dismissed the application for discharge of accused/ revisionists under section 138 Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

One of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that there was discrepancy between the amount written in figures and words in the cheque which puts the very instrument in doubt as per the NI Act. The petitioner contended that the document which was presented before the bank was not a cheque or a negotiable instrument within the definition of the NI Act and the offence u/s 138 NI Act could only have been attracted if a cheque is dishonoured.

The Court observed that the amount written in words is absurd and in no manner can help in ascertainment of the cheque amount. The amount in figures has been written as "Rs.44,18,896/-" whereas, the amount in words is written as "Forty Four Lacs Eighteen Lacs Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only".

As per the definition in the NI Act, a bill of exchange has to be : (1) an instrument in writing, (2) containing an unconditional order signed by the maker, (3) directing a certain person to pay, (4) a certain sum of money and, (5) only to, or to the order of, a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument.

The Court said that while the instrument does not satisfy the point no. 4, as per Section 18 of the NI Act, merely because the amount to be paid as stated in figures and words is different, a cheque or an instrument does not become invalid and the amount stated in words shall be considered to be amount undertaken or ordered to be paid.

However, in the present case, the amount mentioned in words cannot be said to be a certain amount of money as it is an absurdity which makes that amount unquantifiable. It is correct that if the amount written in figures when read had made a sense, it would have become a certain amount and could have satisfied the condition of certainty as to the amount as required by section 5 of NI Act. In the present case, even section 18 of NI Act cannot be applied to the instrument in question. This is because of the absurdity of the amount as mentioned in words in the instrument. Once there is a difference in the amount in the instrument as written in words and figures, the amount written in figures becomes immaterial and cannot be resorted to find what was the intended sum of money ordered to be paid through such instrument.

The Court decided that the amount stated in words is absurd and thus the certainty which is required by sections 5 & 6 of the NI Act with regard to the amount to be paid is missing in this instrument. That being the case, this instrument was not a valid cheque when presented before the bank and the bank had also refused to honour this instrument only on the ground that cheque was irregularly drawn / amount in words and figures differed.









Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more