Cases on Negotiable Instruments Act
FAMOUS CASES ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT*
LIABILITY OF PAYING BANKER WHEN CUSTOMER’S SIGNATURE ON CHEQUE IS FORGED 1. When the customer’s signature on the cheque is forged there is no mandate to the bank to pay. As such a banker is not entitled to debit the customer’s account on such forged cheque.
In Canara Bank vs. Canara Sales Corporation and Others [(1987)2 Supreme Court Cases 666] the company has a current account with the bank which was operated by the Company’s Managing Director. The Company’s account in whose custody the cheque book was, forged the signature of the Managing Director in 42 Cheques totaling Rs.326047.92 over a period of time. This was detected by another accountant. The company immediately on detected of the fraud demanded the amount from the bank. The bank refused payment and therefore the company file a suit against the bank. The bank lost the suit and took the matter up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the bank and held that:
Since the relationship between the customer and the bank is that of a creditor and debtor, the bank had no authority to make payment of a cheque containing a forged signature. The bank would be acted against the law in debiting the customer with the amount of the forged cheque as there would be no mandate on the bank to pay. The Supreme Court pointed out that the document in the cheque form on which the customer’s name as drawer was forged was a mere nullity. The bank would succeed only when it would establish adoption or estoppel.
In dealing the case the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in Bihta Cooperative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd vs. bank of Bihar (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 389). 2. In a joint account if one of the signature is forged then there is no mandate and banker cannot make payment.
In Bihta Cooperative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd vs. bank of Bihar, the Cooperative Marketing Union had an account with the bank which was
LIABILITY OF PAYING BANKER WHEN CUSTOMER’S SIGNATURE ON CHEQUE IS FORGED 1. When the customer’s signature on the cheque is forged there is no mandate to the bank to pay. As such a banker is not entitled to debit the customer’s account on such forged cheque.
In Canara Bank vs. Canara Sales Corporation and Others [(1987)2 Supreme Court Cases 666] the company has a current account with the bank which was operated by the Company’s Managing Director. The Company’s account in whose custody the cheque book was, forged the signature of the Managing Director in 42 Cheques totaling Rs.326047.92 over a period of time. This was detected by another accountant. The company immediately on detected of the fraud demanded the amount from the bank. The bank refused payment and therefore the company file a suit against the bank. The bank lost the suit and took the matter up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the bank and held that:
Since the relationship between the customer and the bank is that of a creditor and debtor, the bank had no authority to make payment of a cheque containing a forged signature. The bank would be acted against the law in debiting the customer with the amount of the forged cheque as there would be no mandate on the bank to pay. The Supreme Court pointed out that the document in the cheque form on which the customer’s name as drawer was forged was a mere nullity. The bank would succeed only when it would establish adoption or estoppel.
In dealing the case the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in Bihta Cooperative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd vs. bank of Bihar (AIR 1967 Supreme Court 389). 2. In a joint account if one of the signature is forged then there is no mandate and banker cannot make payment.
In Bihta Cooperative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd vs. bank of Bihar, the Cooperative Marketing Union had an account with the bank which was