- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Qazi Taj Din
Factual and Procedural Background
A suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1205/1/- was filed on the footing of a promissory note (pronote). In the pronote the amount of Rs. 1,000/- is expressed in words in the body of the instrument, while Rs. 1,500/- is specified in figures in a corner at the top. The suit was being tried by a Single Bench of this Court. The defence counsel argued that under Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the amount in words should prevail over the amount in figures. The Single Bench referred the legal question to the Full Bench for decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, where a promissory note states different amounts in figures (in a corner) and in words (in the body), the amount undertaken to be paid is the amount mentioned in words in the body or the amount specified in figures.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- Under Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the amount mentioned in words should have preference over the amount stated in figures in the promissory note.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which states: “If the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid.” From the peremptory (mandatory) language of Section 18 the Court concluded that where a discrepancy exists between words in the body and figures on the instrument, the amount in words is to be taken as the amount payable. The Court reasoned that the amount in words is stated so there may be no danger of subsequent alteration, and the mandatory nature of Section 18 affords no discretion to prefer figures over words. The Court further relied on the statement in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 2, p. 468) that where there is such a discrepancy the sum denoted by the words is the amount payable, that evidence cannot be adduced to show a mistake in omitting words in the body, and that figures at the top are not a necessary part of the instrument but serve as a summary or index. Applying these principles, the Court held that the amount stated in words in the body of the pronote is the amount payable and that evidence cannot be led to show the figures reflected the intended or paid amount.
Holding and Implications
The amount stated in words in the body of the promissory note prevails over the amount shown in figures; the amount payable is the sum expressed in words.
Direct effect: the pronote is to be treated as payable for the amount expressed in words; the case is remitted to the Single Bench for disposal according to law. No broader implications were discussed in the opinion and no new precedent beyond application of Section 18 and the authority cited was asserted.
Wazir, C.J:— A suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1205/1/- was filed on the footing of a pronote. In the pronote the sum of Rs. 1,000/- is expressed in words in the body of the instrument whereas on the top of the pronote in one corner the amount of Rs. 1,500/- is specified in figures. The suit was being tried by a Single Bench of this Court and the argument of the defence counsel was that under Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount undertaken to be paid should be the amount mentioned in words in the body of the instrument and not the amount specified in figures in the corner of the pronote.
2. The learned Judge referred this case to the Full Bench for deciding the law point whether the amount undertaken should be the amount mentioned in words in the body of the pronote or the amount specified in figures in the corner of the pronote.
3. The counsel for the defendant has argued that under Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the amount mentioned in words should have preference to the amount stated in figures in the pronote.
4. Our attention has been drawn to S. 18 which reads as under:
“If the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the amount stated in words shall be the amount undertaken or ordered to be paid.”
5. From the peremptory nature of Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is clear that when a difference arises between the sum expressed in words in the body of the instrument and that mentioned in figures, the amount mentioned in words will be taken to be the sum for which the instrument was made payable. In the pronote the amount undertaken to be paid is mentioned in words so that there may be no danger of its being altered subsequently. The mandatory nature of S. 18 gives no choice to the Courts to give preference to the sum mentioned in figures over the amount mentioned in words. The sum denoted by words in the pronote is to be taken to be the amount payable and no evidence can be adduced to show that in fact the sum mentioned in figures was paid and not the amount stated in words.
6. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 2 page 468, it is laid down as follows:
“It is customary for bills and notes to have the amount written in figures at the top of the instrument & in words in the body of the instrument. Where there is a discrepancy between the two the sum denoted by the words is the amount payable and evidence cannot be adduced to show that in fact there was a mistake made in omitting words in the body of the instrument.
The figures at the top are not in fact a necessary part of an instrument, though they are commonly placed there. It would seem that their original purpose was that the amount of the instrument might strike the eye immediately and be a note, index, or summary of the contents.”
7. In our opinion, therefore, the amount stated in words in the body of the pronote and not the amount mentioned in figures in the comer of the pronote would be the amount payable by the drawer of the pronote. The case shall go back before the single Bench for disposal according to law.
R.G.D
8. Order accordingly.
Alert