Report No. 11
122. Section 64.-
While presentment for acceptance relates only to bills, presentment for payment is a condition common to all instruments. We have, therefore, separated the provisions relating to the two kinds of instruments.
The provisions of section 64 have been modified to explain more clearly where presentment for payment is or is not necessary.1 The Exception has been redrafted in order to obviate the conflict of judicial opinion which has arisen as to its scope.2
Further, we have grouped together, with suitable verbal changes, the rules relating to presentment for payment in one section3 with different clauses relating to the persons by whom and to whom presentment is to be made, and the time, hour and place of presentment, following the plan we have adopted with respect to presentment for acceptance.
The later part of the of the first paragraph of section 64 states a rules of discharge for non-presentment. We have, accordingly, shifted it to the Chapter on Discharge, with verbal changes to make it comprehensive4.
1. Section 69, ibid.
2. Cf. Oudh Commercial Bank v. Gur Din, 59 IC 604; Ramkrisnayya v. Kasim, 13 Mad 172; Manik v. Parkash, 45 CWN 545.
3. Section 73, App I.
4. Section 79, ibid.
123. We have added a new provision1 laying down clearly what constitutes presentments for payment. Several Chambers have urged that since usage varies regarding the mode of presentment, there should be a definite provision in the Act. Difficulty is often experienced in having to send the original instrument for presentment. It is risky to send the original as it may be lost or it may not be returned. We have, therefore, suggested that the sending of a copy would be sufficient but that the inspection within a reasonable time the presentment shall be deemed to be invalid.
1. Section 74, ibid.
Under Paragraph 2 of section 64, personal presentment is obligatory unless presentment through post is authorised by agreement or usage. As pointed out by some of the Chamber of Commerce, the existing provision is somewhat restrictive in view of the changed conditions of the commercial intercourse. There is no apparent reason why the case of postal communication should depend on agreement or usage. We have left it to the option of the party, who is to make the presentment, to adopt any effective means convenient to him.
Back
