Date unavailable
Mehta v Fatuhnal
Mehta v Fatuhnal (Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1951) [1951] EACA 126 (1 January 1951)
The Court held that the cheque was given as conditional payment for the loan and did not constitute accord and satisfaction. Upon dishonour of the cheque, the original debt revived. The evidence showed that the cheque was dishonoured, as the bank ultimately regarded it as worthless and returned it to the respondent. Notice of dishonour was not legally necessary in this context, as the only parties interested were the payee and drawer, and the cause of dishonour was attributable to the drawer's own act or omission. Even if notice was required, the appellant's conduct—specifically, his letter a…
Source excerpt
- Bills Of Exchange
- Cheque Dishonour
- Accord And Satisfaction
- Notice Of Dishonour
- Money Lent
- Interest On Debt