In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that 'filling up of blanks in a cheque by itself would not amount to forgery'?
A. Surya Lekshmi cotton Mills v. Rajvir Industries
B. M. S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerela
C. Subodh S. Salasker v. Jayaprakash M. Shah
D. Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers and Chemicals
Answer: Option A
This Question Belongs to Law >> Negotiable Instruments Act
The term 'legal representative' in section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
A. Does not include executors or administrator (Rama v. Praoin, AIR 1926 Mad 389)
B. Includes executors or administrator (K. Subbanna v. K. Subbarayudu, AIR 1926 Mad 390)
C. Includes executors but does not include administrators (P. Nayar v. T. Ramanna, AIR 1929 Mad 389)
D. Includes only administrators but does not include executors (P. K. Pati v. Damodar Sahu, AIR 1953 Ori 179)
In the case of a promissory note which is not negotiable
A. Notice of dishonour is compulsory
B. No notice of dishonour is necessary
C. Negotiable Instruments Act is silent on this aspect
D. Indorsement is necessary
The endorsement of a negotiable instrument is followed by delivery
A. Yes
B. No
C. Both (A) and (B)
D. None of the above
'Truncated Cheque' is dealt within which section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
A. Section 5
B. Section 6
C. Section 7
D. Section 8
Join The Discussion