https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751185 The Madras HC upheld the trial court's decision treating the transaction as bill discounting where the appellant bank assured payment. The court rejected the appellant's contention that absence of underlying LC, BG, or OCC limit affected liability, noting the bank issued SFMS message confirming bill clearance and provided email undertaking to pay on due date. Following precedent, the court held that bank's acceptance of bill of exchange creates separate independent contract, making banker liable as acceptor under Section 37 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appeal dismissed. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751185 The Madras HC upheld the trial court's decision treating the transaction as bill discounting where the appellant bank assured payment. The court rejected the appellant's contention that absence of underlying LC, BG, or OCC limit affected liability, noting the bank issued SFMS message confirming bill clearance and provided email undertaking to pay on due date. Following precedent, the court held that bank's acceptance of bill of exchange creates separate independent contract, making banker liable as acceptor under Section 37 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751185