https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273024 Marking a post-dated cheque by the drawee bank was treated as an acceptance of the bill of exchange, because the bank's endorsement was construed as an undertaking to pay on the due date and as assent signed and delivered within the meaning of negotiable instruments law. The commentary also notes that banking practice supported this view, since cheque marking was understood to confer added value and operate as certification in context. On stamp duty, once the instrument had already been admitted in evidence, the bar against later objection prevented a challenge based on insufficient stamping. The bank was therefore described as liable as acceptor, and the non-stamping objection failed. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 1942 00:00:00 +0630 Thu, 31 May 2018 17:03:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273024 Marking a post-dated cheque by the drawee bank was treated as an acceptance of the bill of exchange, because the bank's endorsement was construed as an undertaking to pay on the due date and as assent signed and delivered within the meaning of negotiable instruments law. The commentary also notes that banking practice supported this view, since cheque marking was understood to confer added value and operate as certification in context. On stamp duty, once the instrument had already been admitted in evidence, the bar against later objection prevented a challenge based on insufficient stamping. The bank was therefore described as liable as acceptor, and the non-stamping objection failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Mar 1942 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273024