Beware, different inks could render a cheque invalid
Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com
Chennai:15.07.2019
Take due care while writing your cheque next time, for using two different inks will make render cheques and promissory notes invalid.
Two distinct inks on the negotiable instrument will amount to material alteration, held Madras high court.
Justice CV Karthikeyan passed an order to this effect, on a second appeal filed by one Mallika, whose promissory note containing two different inks for the sum, was held as invalid by two subordinate courts. In the figure ₹35,000, the first digit (3) alone was in blue, whereas the remaining figures (5,000) were in green.
“The material alteration is visible to the naked eye and the very fact that the amount, which is the basis for the claim been written in two different inks, raises a strong suspicion regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the promissory note. It also gives rise to a doubt whether the digit 3 had been subsequently appended after the defendant had signed the promissory note. This would render the document void as per Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act," Justice Karthikeyan added.
Faced with a demand by M Mallika for repayment of ₹35,000 as mentioned in a promissory note, Kasi Pillai said the sum stated in the note was false and that the note itself had been fraudulently created by her. As against a sum of ₹5,000 mentioned in green ink, another figure ‘3’ in blue ink had been added in the front, it was contended.
While a district munsif court, which compared the handwriting, concluded that it had been validly executed, a sub court ruled in favour of Kasi Pillai saying the different ink was indeed a material alteration and hence the promissory note was void.
Confirming the sub court order, Justice Karthikeyan cited Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and said the change of ink colour was the root of the case, and added: “No explanation had been given by Mallika as to why the promissory note had been filled in two separate inks and why particularly the amount ₹35,000 had been filled in two different inks, with the digit ‘3’ in blue and the amount ₹5,000 immediately succeeding the digit ‘3’ in green ink.”
He then decreed that the promissory note, as furnished by Mallika, was void.
Justice CV Karthikeyan passed an order to this effect where the figure ₹35,000 appeared in a cheque with the first digit (3) alone in blue, whereas the remaining figures (5,000) were in green
Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com
Chennai:15.07.2019
Take due care while writing your cheque next time, for using two different inks will make render cheques and promissory notes invalid.
Two distinct inks on the negotiable instrument will amount to material alteration, held Madras high court.
Justice CV Karthikeyan passed an order to this effect, on a second appeal filed by one Mallika, whose promissory note containing two different inks for the sum, was held as invalid by two subordinate courts. In the figure ₹35,000, the first digit (3) alone was in blue, whereas the remaining figures (5,000) were in green.
“The material alteration is visible to the naked eye and the very fact that the amount, which is the basis for the claim been written in two different inks, raises a strong suspicion regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the promissory note. It also gives rise to a doubt whether the digit 3 had been subsequently appended after the defendant had signed the promissory note. This would render the document void as per Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act," Justice Karthikeyan added.
Faced with a demand by M Mallika for repayment of ₹35,000 as mentioned in a promissory note, Kasi Pillai said the sum stated in the note was false and that the note itself had been fraudulently created by her. As against a sum of ₹5,000 mentioned in green ink, another figure ‘3’ in blue ink had been added in the front, it was contended.
While a district munsif court, which compared the handwriting, concluded that it had been validly executed, a sub court ruled in favour of Kasi Pillai saying the different ink was indeed a material alteration and hence the promissory note was void.
Confirming the sub court order, Justice Karthikeyan cited Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and said the change of ink colour was the root of the case, and added: “No explanation had been given by Mallika as to why the promissory note had been filled in two separate inks and why particularly the amount ₹35,000 had been filled in two different inks, with the digit ‘3’ in blue and the amount ₹5,000 immediately succeeding the digit ‘3’ in green ink.”
He then decreed that the promissory note, as furnished by Mallika, was void.
Justice CV Karthikeyan passed an order to this effect where the figure ₹35,000 appeared in a cheque with the first digit (3) alone in blue, whereas the remaining figures (5,000) were in green
No comments:
Post a Comment