In which of the following, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case arising from Negotiable Instruments Act, successive sentences may be directed to run concurrently if both transactions are part of single transaction?
A. (2010) 5 SCC 663, Damodar S. Prahbu v. Sayed Babalal H.
B. (2016) 3 SCC 1, Done Ayengia v. State of Assam & Ors.
C. (2009) 1 SCC 706, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. v. Rajiv Dubey
D. (2016) 10 SCC 761, Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya & Ors.
Answer: Option D
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