TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Confirms Dismissal: Blank Cheques Not Covered by Section 20, Holder Can Fill with Authority.</h1> <h3>S. Gopal Versus D. Balachandran</h3> S. Gopal Versus D. Balachandran - TMI Issues:1. Scope of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding blank cheques signed by the drawer.2. Authority of a holder to fill up a blank cheque signed by the drawer.3. Sending disputed document to an expert for ascertaining the age of the signature.Analysis:Issue 1: Scope of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe petitioner argued that Section 20 does not apply to cheques, only to pronotes and bills of exchange. The court concurred, stating that Section 20 pertains to stamped instruments like pronotes and bills of exchange, allowing the holder in due course to complete them. However, it does not extend to blank cheques issued after signing by the drawer.Issue 2: Authority of a Holder to Fill Up a Blank ChequeThe respondent contended that a holder in due course can fill up a blank cheque. The court referenced a previous case where it was held that once a signed cheque is delivered, it implies the drawer's intent to discharge the liability, even if filled by another. The court affirmed that there is no legal requirement for the drawer to fill up the cheque personally, allowing third-party filling with the drawer's authority.Issue 3: Sending Disputed Document to ExpertThe petitioner sought to send the disputed cheque for handwriting expert's opinion to determine the ink's age. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the accused's right to rebut claims by sending disputed cheques for expert examination. However, in this case, as the accused admitted the signature, there was no need for expert analysis on the ink's age, as it would not provide conclusive evidence due to the limitations in determining ink age accurately.ConclusionThe court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that as the petitioner admitted the signature, sending the cheque for expert opinion on ink age was unnecessary. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the age of ink cannot be definitively determined and that using old ink could create confusion rather than clarify matters. Therefore, the petition for expert analysis was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the revision case and connected miscellaneous petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
