Mr. Swamy is maintaining a Savings Bank Account at XYZ Branch of ABC Bank. A cheque dated 31st March, 2020 for ₹ 8,500 drawn by him, has been paid by the branch on 5th April, 2020. After one month when he got updated his

CS Professional · Banking - Law and Practice · PYQS · June 2021
Mr. Swamy is maintaining a Savings Bank Account at XYZ Branch of ABC Bank. A cheque dated 31st March, 2020 for ₹ 8,500 drawn by him, has been paid by the branch on 5th April, 2020. After one month when he got updated his passbook, he raised objection regarding the said debit of ₹ 8,500. He pointed out that he had issued the said cheque for ₹ 500 only. When the cheque was subsequently examined under Ultraviolet Ray Lamp, it was transpired that the name of the Payee, Amount and Date of cheque were chemically altered. Mr. Swamy alleged negligence on the part of the XYZ Branch of ABC Bank. Whether the Bank action in correct?

Answer & Explanation:

Bank is not liable where a Cheque has been materially altered, but does not appear to have been altered. The banker liable to pay the same get a valid discharge when the bank pays the same according to apparent tenor. Under Section-10 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 'Payment in due course' means a payment made in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument in good faith and without negligence to any person in possession thereof under circumstance, which do not afford a reasonable ground for believing that he is not entitled to receive payment of the amount therein mentioned. Under Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where a cheque has been materially altered but does not appear to have been so altered, a banker liable to pay the same, get a discharge when he pays the same according to apparent tenor. Therefore the action of the Bank is correct.

Topics: Negotiable Instruments

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic