Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Negotiable Instruments

A bill of exchange is drawn on Kavita, whose residence is stated as Pune, but the bill is made payable at Nashik. Kavita dishonours it by non-acceptance. Which statement correctly reflects the Act?

The bill may be protested for non-payment at Nashik, the place specified for payment, without further presentment to the drawee. This is allowed because it was drawn payable at a place other than the drawee's residence, unless it is paid before or at maturity.

  1. AThe bill may be protested for non-payment at Nashik without further presentment to Kavita, unless it is paid before or at maturityCorrect
  2. BThe holder must again present the bill to Kavita at Pune at maturity before any protest for non-payment
  3. CThe bill cannot be protested for non-payment once dishonoured by non-acceptance
  4. DThe bill may be protested for non-payment only at Pune, the drawee's residence

Explanation

Section 103 covers bills drawn payable at a place other than the drawee's stated residence. If dishonoured by non-acceptance, they may be protested for non-payment in the place specified for payment, without further presentment to the drawee, unless paid before or at maturity. Requiring fresh presentment at Pune contradicts this.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Negotiable Instruments shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to Negotiable InstrumentsFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Negotiable Instruments questions