Relief Undertaking Notification does not stop presentation of postdated cheques; interim injunction failed for want of equity.

The relief undertaking notification suspended only enforcement remedies and pending proceedings, not the underlying right to present a postdated cheque on its due date. Presentation of the cheque was treated as an exercise of the payee's contractual and negotiable-instrument right, so the notification did not bar the bank from presenting it. The court also found the suit and interim injunction were aimed at avoiding the statutory consequences of dishonour, and the company failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. The temporary injunction was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, leaving the bank's right to present the cheques intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and the notification issued thereunder protected the company against the bank's right to present postdated cheques on their due dates; (ii) whether presentation of a cheque is an exercise of a right or an enforcement of a remedy; (iii) whether the suit and interim injunction were mala fide to avoid criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and (iv) whether the grant of interim injunction was justified on the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Issue (i): whether the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and the notification issued thereunder protected the company against the bank's right to present postdated cheques on their due dates

Analysis: Section 4(1)(a)(iv) suspends the remedy for enforcement of pre-existing rights and stays pending proceedings, but does not suspend the right itself. Presentation of a postdated cheque on its due date is only an incident of the payee's right and not a coercive enforcement step. A cheque payable on a later date gives rise to liability only on the date it becomes payable, and the relief undertaking notification does not bar such presentation.

Conclusion: The notification did not protect the company from presentation of the postdated cheques on their due dates, and the injunction was not sustainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether presentation of a cheque is an exercise of a right or an enforcement of a remedy

Analysis: Presentation of a cheque is treated as the exercise and enjoyment of the contractual and negotiable-instrument right attached to the instrument. Enforcement of a remedy connotes coercive steps such as a suit, attachment, or sale. A postdated cheque remains a bill of exchange until the date written on it, and only then becomes a cheque capable of presentation.

Conclusion: Presentation of the cheque was an exercise of right, not enforcement of remedy, and therefore was not suspended by the relief undertaking notification.

Issue (iii): whether the suit and interim injunction were mala fide to avoid criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Analysis: The company could not restrain the bank from presenting cheques merely to prevent a possible prosecution under section 138. The protection under the relief undertaking law does not extend to individual criminal liability of directors, and the possibility of criminal proceedings was treated as too remote to justify foreclosing the bank's statutory rights. The circumstances indicated that the injunction was sought to prevent the statutory consequences of dishonour.

Conclusion: The suit and injunction were found to be driven by an oblique purpose and could not justify restraining the bank.

Issue (iv): whether the grant of interim injunction was justified on the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury

Analysis: The company admitted its liability and the issuance of postdated cheques. No strong prima facie case existed in its favour, and the balance of convenience did not favour preventing the bank from presenting the cheques. The only real prejudice was to the bank's legal right, while the company's claim of injury was not made out on the established injunction principles.

Conclusion: The requirements for interim injunction were not satisfied, and the Trial Court erred in granting the injunction.

Final Conclusion: The order of temporary injunction was unsustainable and was set aside, with the bank's right to present the cheques left intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the relief undertaking framework, only enforcement remedies are suspended; the payee's right to present a postdated cheque on its due date is not stayed, and interim injunction cannot be granted to block that presentation in the absence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

---