<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (8) TMI 134 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397191</link>
    <description>An instrument with an incoherent or uncertain amount in words and figures does not satisfy the statutory requirement of certainty for a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A cheque must be a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker for a certain sum, and section 18 only gives precedence to words over figures where the amount stated in words still conveys a definite sum. If the words themselves are absurd or unintelligible, the defect is not cured and section 138 cannot apply because the instrument is invalid at the threshold. Proceedings against the revisionists were therefore unsustainable and discharge was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2020 08:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 134 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397191</link>
      <description>An instrument with an incoherent or uncertain amount in words and figures does not satisfy the statutory requirement of certainty for a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A cheque must be a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker for a certain sum, and section 18 only gives precedence to words over figures where the amount stated in words still conveys a definite sum. If the words themselves are absurd or unintelligible, the defect is not cured and section 138 cannot apply because the instrument is invalid at the threshold. Proceedings against the revisionists were therefore unsustainable and discharge was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>