U. Ponnappa Moothan Sons v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
AIR 1991 SC 441 · Supreme Court of India
A holder in due course under section 9 must show that the instrument was obtained for consideration and without cause to believe in a defect of title.
Unit III · Law of Banking and Negotiable Instruments
Holder, negotiation and liability of parties
Study aid only. Confirm statute numbers with the current bare Act and the official OU LL.B. (3-YDC) 2024–25 syllabus PDF.
Statute sections
| Act / instrument | Section | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | 8–9 | Holder and holder in due course |
| Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | 14–15 | Negotiation and endorsement |
| Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | 32–36 | Liability of maker, drawer, acceptor and endorser |
| Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | 118 | Presumptions as to negotiable instruments |
Landmark cases
Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Purna Chandra Panda
AIR 1957 Ori 153 · Orissa High Court
Endorsement must be on the instrument or on an allonge; negotiation transfers the transferable rights of the holder.
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
(2010) 11 SCC 441 · Supreme Court of India
Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt; the accused bears the evidential burden to displace it.