Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1906 (9) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was the payee named in the note, in support of a plea that the note had been discharged by payment to the person really interested. The District Judge held the evidence admissible and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In this Court there was* a difference of opinion, Subrahmania Aiyar, J., holding that the District Judge was right, while Davies, J., considered that the defendant was precluded by the terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act from denying the payee's right to sue. The question whether it is open to the defendant in a suit on a negotiable instrument to plead that the payee named in the instrument, or that indorsee as the case may be, is a mere benamidar and not entitled to sue is one of considerable importance, and must in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ich would not render them wholly superfluous. We find that the same construction has been put upon these words in Calcutta in Sarat Chunder Dutt v. Kedar Nath Dass 2 C.W.N. 286, decided by Banerjee and Bampini, JJ., a case which is not referred to in the judgments of our learned brothers and does not seem to have been cited before them. It was there held on a consideration of the language of Section 8 that it was not open to the defendant in a suit by the indorsee on a negotiable instrument to set up that the indorsee was a mere benamidar,, and this Court has come to a similar conclusion but without discussing the language of Section 8 in Bojjamma v. Venkataramayya I.L.R. M. 30, and other cases to which we shall refer later. In connection w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ind any English case in which an undisclosed principal has attempted to sue on a negotiable instrument, and we think that the decisions clearly established than an undisclosed principal could not be sued. In Miles Claim (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 97, Lord Justice James said that "it had always been the law in England that no body is liable upon a bill of exchange unless his name or the name of some partnership or body of persons of which he is one appears on the face or on the back of the bill," and Lord Justice Mellish shows that Edmunds v. Bushell (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 97 is not in any way opposed to this rule. Lindus v.Brawell (1848) 5 C.B. 583, where a husband acknowledged his wife's signature has been treated, we think rightly, as a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it or the bearer thereof," while as regards the payee, Section 7(1) provides that in "a bill not payable to bearer, the payee must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty." On the other hand, the non-liability of an undisclosed principal on a bill or note is expressly provided for by Section 23. 4. In America the new Negotiable Instruments Law, printed in the appendix to Mr. Daniell's work on negotiable instruments which has been adopted by twenty states of the American Union, including New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania appears to reproduce in this, as in most other respects, the provision of the Bill of Exchange Act, and may, in our opinion, be regarded as representing the preponderance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ruled. On the other hand, it was held in Bojjamma v. Venkatramayya I.L.R(1897) M. 30 dissenting from C.R.P. 578 of 1895, that it was not open to the defendant to plead that the payee or indorsee was a mere benamidar, and quite recently it has been held, we Jhink rightly, in Bamanja Aiyangar v. Sadagopa Aiyangar I.L.R(1904) M. 205, that a minor cannot sue on a promissory note taken in the name of his adoptive mother. The decision in Krishna Aiyar v. Krishnasavii Aiyar I.L.R(1900) M. 597, as to the liability of the other members of a joint family on a bill accepted by the managing member proceeded upon considerations of Hindu Law and does not affect the present question. We think it unnecessary to discuss the more recent decisions of this Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates