https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108362 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that the 1st defendant bank was negligent in opening an account for a fictitious person and allowing the encashment of stolen, defaced, and forged cheques. The court held that the bank did not act in good faith and without negligence as required under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence in sending the cheques by ordinary post was not considered a defense for the bank. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:33:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108362 The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that the 1st defendant bank was negligent in opening an account for a fictitious person and allowing the encashment of stolen, defaced, and forged cheques. The court held that the bank did not act in good faith and without negligence as required under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence in sending the cheques by ordinary post was not considered a defense for the bank. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108362