VEERA EXPORTS versus T. KALAVATHY

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 02-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
VEERA EXPORTS 
v. 
T. KALAVATHY 
NOVEMBER 2, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : 
Section 87-Materic.l alteration-Effect of-Negotiable instrument-
Revalidation ~f-Held: It is always open to a drawer to voluntarily revalidate 
a negotiable instrument, including a cheque-After such alteration drawer 
cannot contend that the cheque has become void as there is material alteration 
thereto-Even payee of a cheque can make alteration with the consent of the 
drawer thereof-Whether the alteration is made by the drawer himself or made 
with his consent is a question of fact. 
The respondent had issued to the appellant several cheques bearing 
various dates but these cheques, when presented for payment, were dis· 
honoured. The fact of dishonour was brought to the notice of the respond· 
ent and she changed the date of the cheques. But the cheques were once 
again dishonoured. The appellant then filed a complaint under Section 138 
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent contended that 
she had been forced to change the dates against her will. 
High Court quashed the complaint on the ground that the validity 
period of a cheque was only 6 months and that a cheque, which had 
become invalid because of the expiry of the stipulated period could not be 
made valid by alteration of dates. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is no provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881 or in any other law, which stipulates that a drawer of a negotiable 
instrument cannot revalidate it. It is always open to a drawer to voluntar-
ily revalidate a negotiable instrument, including a cheque. (10-F] 
2. The first paragraph of Section 87 of the Act makes it clear that the 
party who consents to the alteration as well as the party who made the 
. H 
alteration are disentitled to complain against such alteration, e.g. if the 
8 
• 
.. 
• 
' 
VEERA EXPORTSv.T. KALAVATHY [VARlAVA, J.] 
9 
drawer of the cheque himself altered the cheque for validating or 
A 
revalidating the same instrument he cannot take advantage of it later by 
saying that the cheque became void as there is material alteration. Further, 
even if the payee or the holder of the cheque made the alteration with the 
consent of the drawer thereof, such alteration also cannot be used as a 
ground to resist the right of the payee or the holder thereof. It is always a 
B 
question of fact whether the alteration was made by the drawer himself or 
whether it was made with the consent of the drawer. It requires evidence to 
prove the aforesaid question whenever it is disputed. This is a fact which 
will have to be established by evidence at the trial. Thus at this stage the 
High Court could not have quashed the complaint. (11-B-C-D; F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
1110-1111 of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2000 of the Madras High 
Court in Crl. O.P. No. 21681 of 1998. 
R. Sudhinder and Rajesh Kumar for the Appellant. 
K. Shivraj Choudhary and Dr. R. Prakash for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
c 
D 
E 
These appeals are against the Judgement of a single Judge of the Madras 
F 
High Court by which the criminal proceedings launched by the appellant under 
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been quashed. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
The Respondent had issued to the Appellant 8 cheques, bearing various dates 
from 9th April, 1995 to 30th April, 1995, for a sum totalling Rs. 4 lacs. The 
cheques were presented for payment on 15th May, 1995 but were dishonoured. 
It is the case of the Appellant that the fact of dishonour was brought to the 
notice of the Respondent and that the Respondent then requested for more time 
to pay. The Appellants claim that they granted her more time to pay. The 
G 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellants claim that as the Respondent still could not pay the amounts, in 
January 1996, she changed the date of the cheques from 1995 to 1996. The 
Appellants claim that the Respondent also made the necessary endorsement on 
the cheques at that time. The Appellant's claim that the Respondent then 
requested the Appellant to present the cheques after a period of three months. 
B 
c 
The cheques were again P.resented on 18th July, 1996 and were dishon-
oured. A legal notice dated 8th August

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.