Bill of Exchange Payable on Demand in Indian Law

The Ambit of 'Bill of Exchange Payable on Demand' under Indian Law: A Definitional and Fiscal Analysis

Introduction

The bill of exchange is a cornerstone of commercial transactions, facilitating trade and credit by providing a reliable instrument for payment.[1] A critical characteristic of such an instrument is its tenor, particularly whether it is payable on demand or at a future determinable time. The determination of an instrument as a "bill of exchange payable on demand" carries significant implications under Indian law, primarily governed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA) and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (ISA). While the NIA primarily defines the rights and liabilities of parties to the instrument, the ISA governs its chargeability to stamp duty, a fiscal requirement crucial for its admissibility in evidence.[2]

This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the concept "bill of exchange payable on demand" within the Indian legal framework. It explores the distinct definitions and interpretations under the NIA and ISA, examines the consequential stamp duty implications, and synthesizes judicial pronouncements that have shaped the understanding of this pivotal commercial instrument. The interplay between these two statutes, often leading to nuanced interpretations, forms the core of this inquiry.

Conceptual Framework: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides the foundational definitions for negotiable instruments in India. A "bill of exchange" is defined under Section 5 of the NIA as "an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order, signed by the maker, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument."[3] This definition emphasizes the unconditional nature of the order to pay.[4]

Section 19 of the NIA specifically addresses instruments payable on demand: "A promissory note or bill of exchange, in which no time for payment is specified, and a cheque, are payable on demand."[5] Thus, if a bill of exchange does not stipulate a specific time for payment, it is, by legal fiction, payable on demand. The Kerala High Court in Aiyappankutty v. Mathoo Mathai & Others clarified that "payable on demand" in the context of a promissory note (and by extension, a bill of exchange) means payable "at once," "forthwith," or "immediately."[6]

A cheque, as defined in Section 6 of the NIA, is a specific type of bill of exchange "drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand."[7] Therefore, every cheque is inherently a bill of exchange payable on demand.[8]

Instruments payable "at sight" are also generally considered payable on demand. The Bombay High Court in Wolstenholme International Ltd. v. Twin Stars Industrial Corporation noted that bills of exchange payable "at sight" were, in that instance, payable on demand.[9]

The Fiscal Definition: Indian Stamp Act, 1899

The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, being a fiscal statute, provides its own definitions, which can differ from those in the NIA, for the purpose of levying stamp duty. Section 2(2) of the ISA defines "bill of exchange" as "a bill of exchange as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and includes also a hundi, and any other document entitling or purporting to entitle any person, whether named therein or not, to payment by any other person of, or to draw upon any other person for, any sum of money."[10]

More significantly, Section 2(3) of the ISA provides an *extended* definition of "bill of exchange payable on demand":

"(3) 'Bill of exchange payable on demand' includes —
(a) an order for the payment of any sum of money by a bill of exchange or promissory note, or for the delivery of any bill of exchange or promissory note in satisfaction of any sum of money, or for the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen;
(b) an order for the payment of any sum of money weekly, monthly, or at any other stated period; and
(c) a letter of credit, that is to say, any instrument by which one person authorizes another to give credit to the person in whose favour it is drawn;"[11]

This definition is inclusive and broader than the NIA's understanding. The Bombay High Court in Wolstenholme International Ltd. emphasized that "the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides an extended definition of the expression 'Bill of Exchange payable on demand.' ... This definition extends the ordinary meaning of the expression as known in common parlance or for that matter as adopted by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881."[9] This sentiment was echoed in Neolite Polymer Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.[12]

The Rajasthan High Court, in Bhanwar Lal v. Firm Mangalji Chhoteylal Baran, critically analyzed Section 2(3)(b) of the ISA. It held that Shahjog hundis payable on a future specified date fell within this extended definition, particularly the phrase "at any other stated period." The court cautioned against applying NIA definitions directly to Stamp Act issues, stating, "Any reference to the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, unless such a reference is warranted by the provisions of stamp act itself is apt to result in an erroneous decision of the issue."[13] This interpretation was affirmed in ANTWERPSE DIAMANT BANK N.V. v. M/S. KAMAL and CO.[14]

Stamp Duty Implications and Admissibility

The classification of a bill of exchange as "payable on demand" under the ISA is crucial for determining its stamp duty liability. Section 3 of the ISA is the charging section, making specified instruments chargeable with duty.[12] Article 13 of Schedule I to the ISA prescribes stamp duty for bills of exchange. Notably, Article 13(b) and (c) levy ad valorem duties on bills "payable otherwise than on demand" based on their tenor.[9]

Historically, Article 13(a) of the ISA prescribed a nominal fixed duty for bills of exchange payable on demand (e.g., one anna). However, this clause was omitted by the Indian Finance Act, 1927.[15] Consequently, as observed by the Calcutta High Court in Stamp Act, In Re (1928) (cited in Ganga Bishan v. Mohd. Abdul Aziz regarding a similar omission in a local act), and reaffirmed by the Bombay High Court in Wolstenholme International Ltd., a bill of exchange payable on demand (as per the extended definition in Section 2(3) ISA) is effectively not chargeable with stamp duty under Article 13.[9], [15]

The consequence of an instrument not being duly stamped is severe. Section 35 of the ISA stipulates that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. Proviso (a) to Section 35 is particularly stringent for bills of exchange and promissory notes: unlike other instruments which may be validated upon payment of duty and penalty, an unstamped or insufficiently stamped bill of exchange or promissory note (except when the duty chargeable does not exceed ten naye paise) cannot be validated subsequently if it was not duly stamped at the time of execution.[16]

Judicial Perspectives on "Payable on Demand"

General Tenor: "At Sight" and Immediate Obligation

As discussed, under the NIA, an instrument payable "at sight" or where no time for payment is specified is deemed payable on demand, implying an immediate obligation to pay upon presentation.[5], [6], [9] The fundamental characteristic remains an unconditional order to pay.[4] In (Nawab Major Sir) Mohammad Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh And Others, the Privy Council, while dealing with a document purported to be a promissory note, emphasized the necessity of an unconditional undertaking to pay, distinguishing it from a mere receipt.[17] This principle is equally applicable to bills of exchange.

The Extended Meaning under Fiscal Law: Instruments Payable at Stated Future Periods

The decisions in Bhanwar Lal and ANTWERPSE DIAMANT BANK N.V. are pivotal in understanding the scope of Section 2(3)(b) of the ISA.[13], [14] These cases establish that an instrument stipulating payment at a single, specified future date can be considered a "bill of exchange payable on demand" for the purposes of the Stamp Act, by virtue of it being an "order for the payment of any sum of money ... at any other stated period." This interpretation means such instruments, which under NIA might be considered payable otherwise than on demand, could be exempt from ad valorem stamp duty under ISA Article 13(b) or (c) if they fit the expansive definition in Section 2(3) ISA.

Post-Dated Instruments

A post-dated cheque presents a unique scenario. While a cheque is defined as a bill of exchange payable on demand (NIA Section 6), a post-dated cheque is not payable on demand until the date it bears. The Bombay High Court in Sitaram Laxminarayan Rathi v. Sitaram Kashiram Koli And Others acknowledged that until the date mentioned in a post-dated cheque arrives, no demand can be made, and it only becomes a cheque (i.e., payable on demand) on that date.[18] The Privy Council in Bank Of Baroda Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank Ltd. And Others also touched upon the issue of certifying post-dated cheques, noting the material date for assessing such an instrument is its actual due date.[19] The stamp duty on an instrument is generally determined by its terms at the time of execution.[20]

Presumptions and Enforcement

Once a bill of exchange is validly constituted and, where necessary, duly stamped, certain presumptions under Section 118 of the NIA apply, such as the presumption of consideration.[21] The holder of a bill of exchange, particularly a holder in due course, has specific rights of enforcement against the parties thereto, including the acceptor who is primarily liable.[22] In the context of cheques (bills of exchange payable on demand drawn on a banker), the banker-customer relationship imposes duties on the bank to honor the customer's mandate, provided the cheque is genuine and funds are available.[23] The collecting bank also plays a role, acting as an agent for its customer.[24]

Conclusion

The legal construct of a "bill of exchange payable on demand" in India is multifaceted, shaped by the distinct objectives of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. While the NIA defines its characteristics for the purpose of negotiability and commercial understanding (generally implying immediate payment or no specified payment time), the ISA employs an extended, inclusive definition primarily for fiscal purposes, determining chargeability to stamp duty.

Judicial interpretations, particularly the line of cases culminating in Bhanwar Lal and its affirmation, have clarified that instruments payable at a future stated period can fall under the ISA's definition of "payable on demand," thereby impacting their stamp duty liability – often resulting in exemption from ad valorem duty. This distinction is critical, as the admissibility of a bill of exchange in evidence hinges on its compliance with stamp duty requirements at the time of its execution, with limited scope for subsequent validation.

Legal practitioners and commercial entities must navigate these dual frameworks with precision, understanding that the characterization of a bill of exchange as "payable on demand" can vary significantly depending on whether the context is general commercial law under the NIA or fiscal obligations under the ISA. This nuanced understanding is essential for the proper drafting, stamping, and enforcement of these vital commercial instruments in India.

References