https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350477 The plaintiff failed to prove that the bank negligently honoured forged cheques or that forgery was established by acceptable evidence. The criminal conviction of the account handler was not conclusive in the civil suit, and the plaintiff had entrusted the cheque book and pass book to that person and authorised him to act on her behalf. The court found no convincing basis to hold that the bank acted in bad faith or without negligence, and the trial court's signature comparison was unsupported by a clear explanation of the admitted signatures or the method used; no expert evidence was produced. In these circumstances, the bank was protected under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the plaintiff was estopped from blaming the bank. en-us Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 06:46:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350477 The plaintiff failed to prove that the bank negligently honoured forged cheques or that forgery was established by acceptable evidence. The criminal conviction of the account handler was not conclusive in the civil suit, and the plaintiff had entrusted the cheque book and pass book to that person and authorised him to act on her behalf. The court found no convincing basis to hold that the bank acted in bad faith or without negligence, and the trial court's signature comparison was unsupported by a clear explanation of the admitted signatures or the method used; no expert evidence was produced. In these circumstances, the bank was protected under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the plaintiff was estopped from blaming the bank. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350477