https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290387 Sections 7, 32 and 33 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were applied to hold that a party may be the drawee and valid acceptor of bills of exchange even where the instrument names "MMTC A/c Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd.", if the surrounding documents, acceptance, procurement of documents and taking delivery of goods show it acted on its own account. Section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar reliance on contemporaneous commercial conduct to ascertain the true arrangement. On that basis, liability as acceptor was affirmed. The Court also held that declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and should be granted cautiously in commercial matters; here, the relief was unjustified because it would defeat admitted bill liability. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290387 Sections 7, 32 and 33 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were applied to hold that a party may be the drawee and valid acceptor of bills of exchange even where the instrument names "MMTC A/c Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd.", if the surrounding documents, acceptance, procurement of documents and taking delivery of goods show it acted on its own account. Section 92 of the Evidence Act did not bar reliance on contemporaneous commercial conduct to ascertain the true arrangement. On that basis, liability as acceptor was affirmed. The Court also held that declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and should be granted cautiously in commercial matters; here, the relief was unjustified because it would defeat admitted bill liability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290387