Negotiable Instrument Act 1881

The explanation for the given answer is that the maxim "Once a bearer always bearer" means that a cheque that is initially made payable to the bearer remains payable to the bearer even if it is later converted to an order cheque by blank endorsement. This means that even if the cheque was originally intended to be payable to a specific person or entity (order cheque), it can still be converted to a bearer cheque through blank endorsement, making it payable to anyone who possesses it. Therefore, the maxim holds true in this scenario.

According to the given statement, PIo (Public Information Officer) is required to either provide the requested information within 30 days of receiving the request and payment of fees, or reject the request for valid reasons specified in sections 8.8 or 8.9 of the RTI (Right to Information) Act. Therefore, the correct answer is true.

The statement suggests that "A/c Payee Crossing" has no implication because it has not been defined in the N.I. Act. This implies that the statement is false. However, the given answer is "false, true" which means that the statement is false and true. Since the statement is false, the answer is incorrect.

The correct answer is "Both (1) and/or 2". This means that the maximum punishment provided in section 138 of the N.I. Act for the dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds can be either a fine to the extent of double the amount of the cheque or a maximum of 2 years' imprisonment. This implies that the court has the discretion to impose either of these punishments or a combination of both, depending on the severity of the offense.

The correct answer is yes. When a cheque presented in a cash credit account is returned unpaid with the reason "Exceeds Arrangement", the payee can resort to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and proceed criminally against the drawer, subject to compliance with certain formalities as provided in the Act. However, this is not applicable if the cheque is returned with the reason "Insufficient Fund".

The correct answer is 7, 10, 12, 15, none. This answer includes all the possible options for the number of days beyond which the penalty is applicable for a failed ATM transaction. The question does not provide the specific number of days, so all the given options are valid possibilities.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deals with the criminal offense in case of dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arrangement for an overdraft account. This section lays down the punishment for such offenses, including imprisonment and fine. It also provides the procedure for initiating legal action against the defaulter.

The given answer states that when there is only one endorsement on a cheque and it is either blank or out of series, the last endorsement is blank. In this case, the cheque, which was originally payable to order, is converted to bearer and can be paid over the counter. This means that the cheque can be cashed by anyone presenting it, without the need for proper identification of the payee. However, it cannot be credited to an account.

A promissory note is a legal document that outlines a promise to repay a debt. It typically involves two parties: the borrower who promises to repay the debt and the lender who is owed the money. Therefore, the minimum number of parties required in a promissory note is two.

According to Section 26 of the N.I. Act 1881, a minor can draw a negotiable instrument, endorse a negotiable instrument, be an endorsee of a negotiable instrument, and be a payee of a negotiable instrument. However, it is important to note that a minor is not personally liable for any obligations or liabilities arising from these actions. Therefore, all of the options mentioned in the question are relevant in relation to a minor's involvement with negotiable instruments.

The statement is true because PIO (Public Information Officer) is responsible for handling requests for information from the public. They are required to provide reasonable assistance to individuals who wish to make a written request for information, in order to facilitate the process. This implies that PIOs are expected to support and guide individuals in reducing their requests into writing, ensuring that the information sought is properly documented and recorded.

In a special crossing, two transverse parallel lines on the face of the instrument are optional. In a general crossing, these lines are typically present, but in a special crossing, they may or may not be present depending on the specific requirements. Similarly, in a doubly crossed to more than one banks crossing, these lines may or may not be present. Therefore, the correct answer is "Any of the above (2) and (3)" because in both special crossing and doubly crossed to more than one banks crossing, the presence of two transverse parallel lines on the face of the instrument is optional.

The correct answer is "89,88,58,85,85(1),None". This means that protection can be available under sections 89, 88, 58, 85, 85(1), and None of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These sections likely provide guidelines or provisions for cases where a material alteration is not apparent in a cheque without the drawer's confirmation but is still paid by the bank. The specific details of these sections and the protection they offer are not provided in the question.

Section 85A of the N.I. Act 1881 provides protection to the paying banker in case of a demand draft. This section states that if a demand draft is presented for payment by a person who is in possession of the draft and claims to be entitled to receive the amount mentioned in it, the paying banker is discharged from liability if he pays the amount in good faith and without negligence. This protection ensures that the paying banker is not held responsible if the demand draft is fraudulently presented or if there is any dispute regarding the entitlement of the person presenting the draft.

A bill of exchange is a financial instrument that is used in international trade to guarantee payment between parties. It involves three parties: the drawer who issues the bill, the drawee who is obligated to pay, and the payee who receives the payment. Therefore, the minimum number of parties required in a bill of exchange is three.

The correct answer is "Cheque" because crossing is a process of drawing two parallel lines across the face of a cheque to make it payable only through a bank account and not to be cashed over the counter. Crossing is not applicable for Promissory Notes or Bills of Exchange.

Section 11 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with Inland Bills. This section specifically outlines the rules and regulations regarding the payment, acceptance, and negotiation of inland bills of exchange. It provides a legal framework for the parties involved in the transaction and ensures the smooth functioning of the bill payment system within the country.

It is possible to have a special crossing without having two transverse parallel crossings. This means that a special crossing can occur even if there are not two lines that intersect each other at two points and are parallel to another line. Therefore, the statement "Special crossing is possible without two transverse parallel crossing" is true. However, without additional context or information, it is not possible to determine the truth value of the second statement, so the answer for that is "false".

Payment in due course has been provided under sections 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. These sections outline the conditions under which a payment made by a person in good faith and without negligence, to the holder of a negotiable instrument, will be considered as payment in due course. These sections provide protection to the payer and ensure that they are not held liable if the instrument is later found to be invalid or defective.

The correct answer is "Payble to BISHNU PADA SARKHEL or Order i.e. to the person in whose favour BISHNU PADA SARKHEL endorses the cheque on the back of it." This is because when the word "ORDER" is struck out, the cheque becomes payable to the person named on the cheque, in this case, BISHNU PADA SARKHEL, or to anyone to whom BISHNU PADA SARKHEL endorses the cheque on the back.

Section 89 of the N.I. Act 1881 provides protection against 'Material Alteration' if such alteration is not detectable in naked eyes in the ordinary course of business. This means that if any alteration is made to a negotiable instrument that cannot be easily seen with the naked eye, the person in possession of the instrument will be protected by the law. This section ensures that individuals are not held responsible for alterations that they were unable to detect.

The preconditions that need to be fulfilled by the 'Payee' to resort to filing suit under section 138 of N.I.Act 1881 to proceed against the drawer of a cheque are as follows: the cheque needs to be returned by the paying bank with the reason 'Insufficient Fund' or 'Exceeds arrangement', as the case may be; the payee should give a maximum of 30 days' notice to the drawer to pay the amount of the cheque; the drawer should get a 15-day time period after receipt of the notice from the payee; and the payee must file a suit within 30 days from the expiry of the 15-day time period mentioned above. Therefore, all the above conditions are relevant for the payee to proceed with the filing of a suit.

A cheque is valid for 3 months from the date of issue. If the drawer puts a date below their signature, which is different from the date in the date field, the validity starts from that date. If the date is not provided, it is determined based on mercantile practice.

The statement is false because a PIO (Public Information Officer) can seek the assistance of other officers for the proper discharge of their duties. PIOs often collaborate with other officers, departments, or agencies to gather information and provide accurate and timely responses to information requests. This collaboration ensures that the duties of a PIO are carried out effectively and efficiently.

The given statement describes a cheque as a Bills of Exchange drawn on a specified banker and made payable not otherwise than on demand. This implies that a cheque can be considered as a restrictive Bills of Exchange, as it is drawn on a specified banker and can only be paid on demand. Therefore, the correct answer is "a Restrictive Bills of Exchange".

A special crossing refers to the crossing of a cheque with the name of a specific bank or banks within the crossing seal or round seal. This indicates that the cheque can only be deposited into an account held at the specified bank(s). In contrast, a general crossing involves the use of two parallel transverse lines without any specific bank name mentioned. Therefore, the correct answer is Special Crossing.

Forgery of the Drawer's Signature is not covered under 'Protection for material alteration' in the N.I. Act, even if such alteration is authenticated by the Drawer's Signature. This means that if someone forges the Drawer's Signature on a negotiable instrument, it will not be protected under the law, regardless of any other alterations made to the instrument. The N.I. Act provides protection for certain types of alterations, but forgery of the Drawer's Signature is not one of them.

Usance refers to a credit term in which the payment for goods or services is deferred and the buyer is allowed a certain period of time to make the payment. In this case, the drawee, who is the buyer, needs to accept the usance bill of exchange (BOE) in order to acknowledge their obligation to make the payment at a later date. This acceptance is necessary for the BOE to become legally binding and enforceable. Therefore, usance is the correct answer as it requires acceptance by the drawee.

Section 85(1) of the N.I. Act 1881 provides protection to the paying banker in the case of an order cheque. This means that if the paying banker has acted in good faith and in accordance with the apparent tenor of the instrument, they will be protected from any liability. In other words, if the banker has paid the order cheque without negligence and in the ordinary course of business, they cannot be held responsible for any loss or damage caused by the payment. This provision ensures that paying bankers can carry out their duties without fear of legal repercussions.

The correct answer is 85. Section 85 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides protection to the paying banker. This section states that if a banker in good faith and without negligence pays a cheque that is crossed generally or specially, and the payment is made to the rightful owner, the banker will be protected from any liability. This section ensures that the paying banker is safeguarded when making payments in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

As per the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the words and figures of a cheque differ, the payment will be made according to the amount mentioned in words. This provides protection to the payer in terms of section 18 of the N.I. Act 1881.

The validity of a cheque is determined from the date of issue of the cheque. This means that the cheque is valid and can be presented for payment within a certain period of time from the date it was issued. After this period, the cheque may become stale or invalid and may not be accepted by the bank. Therefore, it is important to ensure that cheques are presented for payment within the validity period to avoid any issues or complications.

not-available-via-ai

According to the provision of the N.I.Act 1881, there is no maximum limit on the number of endorsements that can be made. This is because 'Alongee', which refers to additional sheets of paper, can be attached to the instrument to accommodate numerous endorsements. Therefore, the correct answer is that there is no maximum number of endorsements.

Section 85(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 provides protection to the paying banker in the case of a bearer cheque that is expressly made payable to the bearer on the face of the instrument. This means that if the cheque is presented to the banker for payment and it is in order, the banker can make the payment without being held liable for any loss or damage that may arise from the cheque being a forgery or obtained through unlawful means. This section safeguards the paying banker and ensures that they are not held responsible for any fraudulent or unauthorized transactions involving bearer cheques.

not-available-via-ai

The negotiation of a bearer cheque is completed by delivery, which means physically handing over the cheque to the recipient. Endorsement followed by delivery is also a valid method of negotiation, where the cheque is first endorsed by the payee and then delivered to the new holder. Only endorsement, without delivery, is not sufficient to complete the negotiation. Similarly, only delivery, without endorsement, is also not enough. None of the given options suggest that negotiation can be completed without either delivery or endorsement.

The bill drawn in New Delhi and made payable in London by a resident Indian can be classified as either an Inland Bill or a Foreign Bill. An Inland Bill refers to a bill that is drawn and payable within the same country, while a Foreign Bill refers to a bill that is drawn in one country and made payable in another. Since the bill in question is drawn in New Delhi (India) and made payable in London (UK), it can be categorized as either an Inland Bill or a Foreign Bill. Therefore, the correct answer is either Inland or Foreign.

The last amendment of the N.I.Act incorporated sections 143 to 147.

The bill is dated 30th November, 2012 and is payable 3 months after the date. Therefore, if we count 3 months from 30th November, 2012, we will reach 28th February, 2013. However, since February does not have 30 days, the bill will be due for payment on the next day, which is 1st March, 2013. Therefore, the correct answer is 3rd March.

Both the State Government and the Central Government have the authority to declare a Bank Holiday under section 25 of the N.I. Act 1881. This means that either the State Government or the Central Government can declare a Bank Holiday, or both can declare it simultaneously. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) does not have the authority to declare a Bank Holiday in this context.

The explanation for the given correct answer is that in the case of an "Account Payee" crossed cheque, both the statements provided are relevant. The first statement explains that while crossing is a direction to the paying banker, the "Account Payee" wordings are a direction to the collecting banker. This means that the cheque should be collected through the account of the named payee only. The second statement further supports this by stating that collecting the cheque through the account of the named payee provides protection to the collecting banker under section 131 of the N.I. Act 1881. Therefore, both statements are relevant in the context of an "Account Payee" crossed cheque.

The explanation for the given answer "False" is that in the RTI Act 2005, PIO actually stands for Public Information Officer. Therefore, the correct answer should be "True" instead of "False".

Section 131 of the N.I. Act provides protection to the collecting banker. This means that if a banker collects payment on behalf of a customer in good faith and without negligence, they are protected from any claims or liabilities that may arise from the transaction. This section ensures that the collecting banker can carry out their duties without fear of legal repercussions, as long as they have acted in good faith and without negligence.

The correct answer is "Both are relevant". This means that both statements are true and important in relation to the concept of a "Not Negotiable" crossing on a cheque. The first statement explains that this crossing restricts the character of negotiability of the cheque, indicating that it cannot be freely transferred to another party. The second statement clarifies that even if the cheque is further negotiated despite the "Not Negotiable" crossing, the transferee (the person receiving the cheque) cannot obtain a better title (ownership) than the transferrer (the person who initially issued the cheque).

not-available-via-ai

The explanation for the given answer is that if the forgery of the drawer's signature is not visible even before the Hanovian lamp, then the bank would not be able to detect it and would unknowingly pay the amount. In such a case, if the bank pays, they would still be protected because the forgery was not apparent. However, it is important to note that the specific provisions regarding this scenario are not provided in the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The given answer is False because the payee can proceed under section 138 against the drawer in this situation. Although the cheque was not returned due to insufficient funds, the act of countermanding the cheque by the drawer after it was issued in favor of the payee is considered an offense under section 138 of the Act. Therefore, the payee has the right to take legal action against the drawer for dishonoring the cheque.

The given correct answer states that it is false that two transverse parallel lines have to be drawn to cross a cheque generally, positively on the left-hand upper corner of the cheque. The explanation for this is that crossing may be anywhere on the face of the instrument. Additionally, it is true that two transverse parallel lines are not compulsory for general crossing. The answer also states that there is no other information or options available.