Last Updated on: 14th May 2025, 10:43 am
Competitive Exams, Entrance Exams are conducted on MCQ. Click HERE to understand the Forms, Structure, Rules of MCQ, techniques of understanding, analysing and selection correct answer of MCQ,
Play the Video explaining some interesting aspects of selection of correct answer of MCQ.
Complete resources on Negotiable Instruments Act
Complete resources on Negotiable Instruments
Negotiable Instruments – MCQ
1. Which of the following is /are the mode(s) of crossing?
(a) Special
(b) Restrictive
(c) Not negotiable
(d) All (a), (b) and (c) above.
Intent of the Question: To test knowledge of different types of cheque crossings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Options Analysis:
(a) Special – Correct. A special crossing requires the name of a specific bank to be added to the cheque.
(b) Restrictive – Correct. Restrictive crossing limits the use of the cheque to a specific purpose.
(c) Not negotiable – Correct. “Not negotiable” crossing means the cheque can be transferred but does not provide better title than the transferor.
(d) All (a), (b), and (c) above – Correct. Since all the above modes exist, this is the best choice.
Correct Answer: (d) All (a), (b), and (c) above
Logical Deliberation:
Under Section 123-130 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, different types of crossing exist to ensure restricted payment, enhanced security, and controlled negotiability.
Ans. According to Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a cheque can be crossed by ‘general’, ‘special’, ‘restrictive’, and also by ‘not negotiable’.
2. Which of the following statements is true regarding general crossing of cheque?
(a) The drawee bank cannot make payment otherwise than to a bank
(b) The drawee bank can make payment to the holder of the cheque
(c) The drawee bank is responsible to endorse the cheque
(d) The drawee bank can make payment to any person who is in lawful possession of the instrument.
Intent of the Question:To test knowledge of general cheque crossing and its implications.
Options Analysis:
(a) The drawee bank cannot make payment otherwise than to a bank – Correct. A generally crossed cheque must be paid only to a bank, not over the counter.
(b) The drawee bank can make payment to the holder of the cheque – Incorrect. General crossing requires bank intervention.
(c) The drawee bank is responsible for endorsing the cheque – Incorrect. Endorsement is done by the payee or holder, not the bank.
(d) The drawee bank can make payment to any person who is in lawful possession of the instrument – Incorrect. A crossed cheque must be processed through a bank account.
Correct Answer: (a) The drawee bank cannot make payment otherwise than to a bank
Logical Deliberation:
A general crossing restricts the mode of payment to only through a bank account, preventing direct encashment.
Ans. In case of a cheque crossed generally, drawee bank can make payment only when it is presented by bank. It shall not pay on the counter but he has to make payment through the account of the payee.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
3. Which of the following statements is not correct?
(a) A cheque may be crossed
(b) A demand draft can be crossed
(d) A bill of exchange can be crossed
(d) A notice of dishonor should be given to the drawer during dishonour of a bill.
Intent of the Question:To differentiate between instruments that can be crossed.
Options Analysis:
(a) A cheque may be crossed – Correct. A cheque can be crossed generally or specially.
(b) A demand draft can be crossed – Correct. Demand drafts can also be crossed for security.
(c) A bill of exchange can be crossed – Incorrect. Bills of exchange are not meant to be crossed, as they do not function like cheques.
(d) A notice of dishonor should be given to the drawer during dishonor of a bill – Correct. Notice of dishonor is essential for a bill of exchange.
Correct Option: (c) A bill of exchange can be crossed
Logical Deliberation:
A bill of exchange is a credit instrument and does not have the same banking restrictions as a cheque.
Ans. A cheque and a demand draft may be crossed. But,a bill of exchange can not be crossed
A notice of dishonor should be given to the drawer in case of dishonour of a bill.
Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
4. What is the legal position of an undated instrument under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881?(a) Not invalid
(b) Invalid
(c) Voidable
(d) Void ab initio.
Intent of the Question:
To determine the validity of an undated negotiable instrument.
Options Analysis:
(a) Not invalid – Correct. The absence of a date does not automatically invalidate an instrument.
(b) Invalid – Incorrect. The instrument remains valid unless challenged.
(c) Voidable – Incorrect. It is not voidable unless proven fraudulent.
(d) Void ab initio – Incorrect. Void ab initio means “invalid from the beginning,” which does not apply here.
Correct Option: (a) Not invalid
Logical Deliberation:
An undated instrument is not automatically void, but dating it is important for maturity and enforceability.
Ans. An undated instrument is not invalid under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
5. An unstamped promissory note in a court of law as evidence is
(a) Admissible
(b) Inadmissible
(c) Admissible by affixing twice the amount of value of stamps required
(d) Admissible with a penalty of Rs.500.
Intent of the Question:
To test the admissibility of unstamped promissory notes in court.
Options Analysis:
(a) Admissible – Incorrect. Unstamped promissory notes cannot be used in court without proper stamping.
(b) Inadmissible – Correct. Without a stamp, the note cannot be legally enforced.
(c) Admissible by affixing twice the amount of required stamp duty – Incorrect. Courts do not allow retrospective stamping.
(d) Admissible with a penalty of Rs.500 – Incorrect. Penalty provisions do not make unstamped notes admissible.
Correct Option: (b) Inadmissible
Logical Deliberation:
As per Indian Stamp Act, an unstamped promissory note is inadmissible in court.
Ans. An unstamped promissory note is not admissible as evidence in court of law.
Hence, option (b) is the correct answer.
6. Which of the following is an example of general crossing of cheques?
(a) A/c payee
(b) & Company
(c) Bank of India – not negotiable
(d) A/c Payee – not negotiable.
Intent of the Question:
To identify the correct format for general crossing.
Options Analysis:
(a) A/c payee – Incorrect. “A/c Payee” is a restrictive crossing, not a general one.
(b) & Company – Correct. Adding “& Co.” between parallel lines is a standard general crossing.
(c) Bank of India – not negotiable – Incorrect. This is a special crossing because it names a bank.
(d) A/c Payee – not negotiable – Incorrect. This is a restrictive crossing, not a general one.
Correct Option: (b) & Company
Logical Deliberation:
A general crossing consists of two parallel lines with or without words like “& Co.”.
Ans. A General Crossing is done by adding on the cheque the words ‘and company’ or any abbreviation thereof, between two parallel transverse lines, either with or without the words ‘not negotiable’.
Hence, option (b) is the correct answer.
7. Pawan borrowed Rs.20,000 from a moneylender on May 1, 2005 at 20% p.a. The moneylender did not file suit within the validity period of promissory note. On May 15, 2009 Pawan wrote on the reverse of the promissory note – “I accept this pronote and it is valid for next three years”. Now the moneylender proposes to file a suit to recover the loan with interest. Which of the following statements is/are correct?
(a)The acknowledgement of debt given by Pawan is not a valid promise to file a suit to recover loan
(b) The acknowledgement of debt given by Pawan is valid to file a suit
(c) Moneylender can file a suit against Pawan to recover the loan on the basis of original promissory note
(d) Pawan is not liable to pay the loan with interest.
Intent of the Question:
To test the enforceability of time-barred debts.
Options Analysis:
(a) The acknowledgment of debt is not a valid promise to file a suit – Correct. A mere acknowledgment does not renew a time-barred debt.
(b) The acknowledgment of debt is valid to file a suit – Incorrect. Without an express promise, it cannot be enforced.
(c) The moneylender can file a suit based on the original promissory note – Incorrect. A time-barred note is unenforceable.
(d) Pawan is not liable to pay the loan with interest – Incorrect. Pawan remains morally liable but cannot be sued.
Correct Option: (a) The acknowledgment of debt is not a valid promise to file a suit
Logical Deliberation:
Under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, a time-barred debt can only be enforced if there is a new express promise to pay.
Ans. A time barred debt agreed upon by a written agreement, signed by the debtor or his duly authorized agent, is enforceable even without consideration. Express promise is required to pay the time barred debt rather than a mere acknowledgement of the debt. In the given case, it is only an acknowledgement of the existence of the debt. Pawan did not indicate his intention to pay the debt. Hence, the moneylender cannot file suit on the basis of original promissory note as it is invalid in terms of law.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
8. Which of the following statement is valid in a promissory note
(a) ‘I Owe you Rs.5000’‘
(b) I Owe Mr. A Kumar Rs.5000’‘
(c) I promise to pay Mr. A Kumar Rs.5000 on demand’
(d) ‘I promise to pay the bearer Rs.5000 on demand’
(a) ‘I Owe you Rs.5000’ (Incorrect) Inference: This is a mere acknowledgment of debt, not a promise to pay. Logical Explanation: A promissory note requires an explicit promise to pay, not just an acknowledgment of owing.
(b) ‘I Owe Mr. A Kumar Rs.5000’ (Incorrect) Inference: Similar to (a), this is an acknowledgment, not a promise. Logical Explanation: Lacks the crucial “promise to pay” element.
(c) ‘I promise to pay Mr. A Kumar Rs.5000 on demand’ (Correct) Inference: This clearly states a promise to pay a specific person a sum of money. Logical Explanation: Meets all the requirements of a promissory note: unconditional promise, specific payee, and certain sum.
(d) ‘I promise to pay the bearer Rs.5000 on demand’ (Incorrect) Inference: While seemingly valid, it violates the RBI Act.
Logical Explanation: Section 31 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 prohibits promissory notes payable to bearer.
Ans. Promissory Note (not being a bank note or a currency note) is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to order of a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument (s. 4). The instrument must contain an express promise to pay. A mere acknowledgment of indebtedness does not constitute a promissory note.
As per section 31 of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, a promissory not can not be made payable to bearer (whether payable on demand or is payable otherwise than on demand). So, option (d) is not correct.
Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
9. A negotiable instrument is payable to order can be transferred by:
(a) Simple delivery
(b) Endorsement and delivery
(c) Endorsement
(d) Registered Post.
(a) Simple delivery (Incorrect) Inference: Simple delivery is insufficient for order instruments. Logical Explanation: Instruments payable to order require endorsement to transfer ownership.
(b) Endorsement and delivery (Correct) Inference: This is the standard method for transferring order instruments. Logical Explanation: Endorsement signifies the transferor’s intent, and delivery completes the transfer.
(c) Endorsement (Incorrect) Inference: Endorsement alone is not enough. Logical Explanation: Delivery is essential to perfect the transfer.
(d) Registered Post (Incorrect) Inference: Registered post is a method of delivery, not a method of transfer. Logical Explanation: While registered post can be used for delivery, it doesn’t effect the transfer itself. Endorsement is still required.
Ans. A negotiable instrument payable to order can be transferred by endorsement of the instrument and its delivery.
Hence, option (b) is the correct answer.
10. Acceptance is essential for:
(a) Bills of Exchange
(b) Promissory
(c) NoteCheque
(d) None of the above.
(a) Bills of Exchange (Correct) Inference: Acceptance is a key step in a bill of exchange’s lifecycle. Logical Explanation: The drawee’s acceptance signifies their agreement to pay the bill.
(b) Promissory Note (Incorrect) Inference: Acceptance is not required for promissory notes. Logical Explanation: The maker of a promissory note is already the one promising to pay.
(c) Cheque (Incorrect) Inference: Acceptance is not required for cheques. Logical Explanation: Cheques are payable on demand and don’t require prior acceptance.
(d) None of the above (Incorrect) Inference: Option (a) is the correct answer.
Ans. Bills of Exchange must be accepted by the Drawee. Without acceptance, it is not considered as a valid negotiable instrument.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
11. Which of the following is/are Negotiable Instruments by Statute:
(a) Bill of Exchange,
(b) Hundi,
(c) Railway Receipt,
(d) None of the above.
(a) Bill of Exchange (Correct) Inference: Bills of exchange are explicitly recognized as negotiable instruments. Logical Explanation: Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lists bills of exchange.
(b) Hundi (Incorrect) Inference: While hundis are traditional instruments, their negotiability is based on custom and usage, not statute. Logical Explanation: Hundis are not explicitly mentioned in the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(c) Railway Receipt (Incorrect) Inference: Railway receipts are documents of title, not negotiable instruments. Logical Explanation: They represent goods, not money, and have specific transfer procedures.
(d) None of the above (Incorrect) Inference: Option (a) is correct.
Ans. As per s.13 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Promissory Notes, Bill of exchange and Cheques are recognized as negotiable instruments by Statute.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
12. Choose the correct alternatives among the following:
(a) Bill of Exchange may be made in sets
(b) Promissory Note may be made in sets
(c) Cheques may be made in sets
(d) None of the above.
(a) Bill of Exchange may be made in sets (Correct) Inference: Foreign bills of exchange are often made in sets. Logical Explanation: Multiple copies minimize the risk of loss or delay in international transit.
(b) Promissory Note may be made in sets (Incorrect) Inference: Promissory notes are not typically made in sets. Logical Explanation: There’s no practical reason for multiple copies of a simple promise to pay.
(c) Cheques may be made in sets (Incorrect) Inference: Cheques are never made in sets. Logical Explanation: The nature of a cheque (demand instrument) makes multiple copies illogical.
(d) None of the above (Incorrect) Inference: Option (a) is correct.
Ans. Foreign Bill of Exchange are normally drawn in sets (multiple copies) to avoid undue delay, loss or miscarriage in transit so that at least one part of the bill reaches the drawee safely at the earliest, for acceptance.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
13. Choose the correct alternatives among the following:
(a) A cheque is always payable on demand
(b) A bill of exchange is always payable on demand
(c) A Promissory Note is always payable on demand
(d) All Negotiable Instruments are always payable on demand.
(a) A cheque is always payable on demand (Correct) Inference: This is a defining characteristic of a cheque. Logical Explanation: Cheques are designed for immediate payment.
(b) A bill of exchange is always payable on demand (Incorrect) Inference: Bills of exchange can be payable on demand or at a future date. Logical Explanation: Time drafts exist.
(c) A Promissory Note is always payable on demand (Incorrect) Inference: Promissory notes can also be payable at a future date. Logical Explanation: Promissory notes can be time or demand.
(d) All Negotiable Instruments are always payable on demand (Incorrect) Inference: This is a generalization that doesn’t hold true. Logical Explanation: As seen above, bills of exchange and promissory notes can have future payment dates.
Ans. A cheque is always payable on demand.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
15. Choose the correct alternatives among the following:
(a) A cheque does not require any stamp
(b) A bill of Exchange does not require any stamp
(c) A Promissory Note does not require any stamp
(d) No Negotiable Instrument require any stamp.
(a) A cheque does not require any stamp (Correct) Inference: Cheques are exempt from stamp duty. Logical Explanation: This is a specific provision in the Stamp Act.
(b) A bill of Exchange does not require any stamp (Incorrect) Inference: Bills of exchange generally require a stamp. Logical Explanation: Stamp duty is typically applicable.
(c) A Promissory Note does not require any stamp (Incorrect) Inference: Promissory notes generally require a stamp. Logical Explanation: Similar to bills of exchange, stamp duty is usually required.
(d) No Negotiable Instrument require any stamp (Incorrect) Inference: This is a false statement. Logical Explanation: Cheques are the exception.
Ans. All negotiable instruments require stamp other than cheque.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
- Choose the correct alternatives among the following:
- A cheque must be drawn on bank
- A bill of Exchange must be drawn on bank
- A Promissory Note must be drawn on bank
- All Negotiable Instruments must be drawn on bank.
(a) A cheque must be drawn on bank (Correct) Inference: This is a fundamental requirement of a cheque. Logical Explanation: A cheque is an order to a bank to pay.
(b) A bill of Exchange must be drawn on bank (Incorrect) Inference: Bills of exchange can be drawn on individuals or entities, not just banks. Logical Explanation: While some bills might involve banks, it’s not a requirement.
(c) A Promissory Note must be drawn on bank (Incorrect) Inference: Promissory notes are made by individuals or entities, not banks. Logical Explanation: The promise to pay is made by the maker, not a bank.
(d) All Negotiable Instruments must be drawn on bank (Incorrect) Inference: This is a false generalization. Logical Explanation: Only cheques are necessarily drawn on banks.
Ans. A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn upon a specified banker.
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
16. Choose the correct alternatives among the following:
(a) Two parallel Lines without any words is general crossing
(b) Two parallel Lines with the words ’Not Negotiable ‘ is special crossing
(c) Two parallel Lines with the words ’& Co ‘is special crossing
(d) Two parallel Lines with the words ‘A/c payee’ is general crossing.
(a) Two parallel Lines without any words is general crossing (Correct) Inference: This is the basic form of a general crossing. Logical Explanation: It directs the collecting bank to pay the cheque into a bank account.
(b) Two parallel Lines with the words ’Not Negotiable ‘ is special crossing (Incorrect) Inference: “Not Negotiable” doesn’t make it a special crossing. Logical Explanation: It’s still a general crossing, but with a restriction on transferability.
(c) Two parallel Lines with the words ’& Co ‘is special crossing (Incorrect) Inference: “& Co.” is not a special crossing. Logical Explanation: It was historically associated with special crossings but is now considered part of a general crossing.
(d) Two parallel Lines with the words ‘A/c payee’ is general crossing (Incorrect) Inference: “A/c Payee” is a restrictive crossing, but still a general crossing. Logical Explanation: Directs payment to the payee’s account but doesn’t specify a particular bank.
Ans. A General Crossing is done by adding on the cheque two parallel transverse lines simply, either with or without the words ‘not negotiable’ (s.123).
Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
17. Choose the correct alternatives among the following:
(a) Two parallel lines with the words ’Not Negotiable ‘ in a cheque is special crossing
(b) Two parallel Lines with the words ’& Co’ in a cheque is special crossing
(c) Two parallel Lines with the words ‘A/c payee’ in a cheque is general crossing
(d) Two parallel Lines with the name of a bank inscribed in a cheque is special crossing.
(a) Two parallel lines with the words ’Not Negotiable ‘ in a cheque is special crossing (Incorrect) Inference: “Not Negotiable” does not make it a special crossing. Logical Explanation: It is a general crossing with a specific instruction.
(b) Two parallel Lines with the words ’& Co’ in a cheque is special crossing (Incorrect) Inference: “& Co” is not a special crossing. Logical Explanation: As explained before, it’s considered part of a general crossing.
(c) Two parallel Lines with the words ‘A/c payee’ in a cheque is general crossing (Incorrect) Inference: While restrictive, it is not considered special crossing. Logical Explanation: It directs payment to the payee’s account, but it’s still a general crossing.
(d) Two parallel Lines with the name of a bank inscribed in a cheque is special crossing (Correct) Inference: This defines a special crossing. Logical Explanation: Directs payment to a specific bank.
Ans. A Special Crossing is done by adding on the cheque the name of a banker, either with or without the words ‘not negotiable’ between the transverse lines (s. 124).
Hence, option (d) is the correct answer.
18. Select the wrong Statement:
(a) A bill of exchange is payable on demand when no time is specified
(b) A bill of exchange is payable on demand when ‘at sight’ is written on it
(c) A bill of exchange payable on demand is entitled to days of grace
(d) A Cheque must be payable on demand.
(a) A bill of exchange is payable on demand when no time is specified (Correct) Inference: This is a correct understanding of bills payable on demand. Logical Explanation: If no time is specified, it is presumed to be payable on demand.
(b) A bill of exchange is payable on demand when ‘at sight’ is written on it (Correct) Inference: “At sight” indicates demand payment. Logical Explanation: “At sight” means upon presentation.
(c) A bill of exchange payable on demand is entitled to days of grace (Incorrect) Inference: This is the incorrect statement. Logical Explanation
(d) A Cheque must be payable on demand (Correct) Inference: This is a fundamental characteristic of a cheque. Logical Explanation: Cheques are designed for immediate payment.
Ans. A bill payable ‘on demand’ is not entitled to ‘days of grace’.
Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
19. B of Bombay transfers a bill payable to K of Kerala or to his order for the purpose of discounting the bill. K of Kerala indorses it to C of Chennai, who takes it bona fide and for value.
(a) C can hold only B liable for payment
(b) C can hold only K liable for payment
(c) C can hold both B & K liable for payment
(d) None of the above.
(a) C can hold only B liable for payment (Incorrect) Inference: C can hold prior endorsers liable. Logical Explanation: As a holder in due course, C can pursue any prior party.
(b) C can hold only K liable for payment (Incorrect) Inference: C can hold other prior endorsers liable as well. Logical Explanation: K is not the only prior party.
(c) C can hold both B & K liable for payment (Correct) Inference: C can hold all prior endorsers liable. Logical Explanation: Each endorser becomes liable to subsequent holders.
(d) None of the above (Incorrect) Inference: Option (c) is the correct answer. Logical Explanation: Each endorser becomes liable to subsequent holders.
Ans. Any person who is in lawful possession of an instrument payable to order, as a holder, is entitled to enforce his prior parties for payment due on it. So, C can hold both B & K liable for payment.
Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
20. A stamped instrument was signed by X keeping the amount column blank. X gives the paper to Y with the authority to fill up the amount column with Rs.200. Y fraudulently fills the paper for Rs.2,000, which was enough for the stamp to cover. The paper was delivered to Z who takes it in good value without notice of fraud.
(a) Z can recover Rs.200 only on the instrument
(b) Z can recover Rs.2000 on the instrument
(c) Z cannot recover anything on the instrument
(d) None of the above.
(a) Z can recover Rs.200 only on the instrument (Incorrect) Inference: Z can recover the amount filled in, up to the stamp value. Logical Explanation: Section 20 allows a holder in due course to recover the full amount, provided it’s covered by the stamp.
(b) Z can recover Rs.2000 on the instrument (Correct) Inference: Z can recover the full Rs.2000, as it’s within the stamp’s value. Logical Explanation: Z is a holder in due course and the amount is covered by the stamp.
(c) Z cannot recover anything on the instrument (Incorrect) Inference: Z has rights as a holder in due course. Logical Explanation: The fraudulent filling doesn’t invalidate the instrument in Z’s hands.
(d) None of the above (Incorrect) Inference: Option (b) is the correct answer. Logical Explanation: See explanation for (b).
Ans. As per Sec 20, a holder in due course can recover the whole amount stated in the instrument provided that such amount is covered by the stamp.
Since, Z is a holder in due course, he is entitled to recover the whole amount of the instrument subject to the value covered by the stamp affix on the instrument. So, Z can recover Rs.2,000 on the instrument.
Hence, option (b) is the correct answer.
21. Which of the following is not applicable to Negotiable Instrument?
(a) It must be in writing
(b) It must be transferable
(c) It must be registered
(d) It must be signed.
(a) It must be in writing (Correct) Inference: Negotiable instruments must be written. Logical Explanation: This is a fundamental requirement.
(b) It must be transferable (Correct) Inference: Transferability is a key feature. Logical Explanation: Negotiability implies the ability to transfer ownership.
(c) It must be registered (Incorrect) Inference: Registration is not required for negotiability. Logical Explanation: Negotiable instruments are typically not registered.
(d) It must be signed (Correct) Inference: Signature is essential for validity. Logical Explanation: The maker’s signature authenticates the instrument.
Ans. A negotiable instrument must be in writing, transferable and signed. But, it may not be registered. Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
22. Pick-up the incorrect answer from the following:
‘A’ signs the instrument in the following manner. State the instrument which cannot be considered as Promissory Note:
- I promise to pay B or order Rs.500
- I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B Rs.1,000, to be paid on demand, for value received
- I promise to pay B Rs.10,000 after three months
- I promise to pay B Rs.500 seven days after my marriage with C.
(a) I promise to pay B or order Rs.500 (Correct) Inference: This is a valid promissory note. Logical Explanation: It contains an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum.
(b) I acknowledge myself to be indebted to B Rs.1,000, to be paid on demand, for value received (Correct) Inference: While it acknowledges debt, it also promises to pay on demand, making it a promissory note. Logical Explanation: The “to be paid on demand” phrase constitutes a promise.
(c) I promise to pay B Rs.10,000 after three months (Correct) Inference: This is a valid promissory note with a fixed payment date. Logical Explanation: It contains a clear promise to pay at a specified future time.
(d) I promise to pay B Rs.500 seven days after my marriage with C (Incorrect) Inference: This is conditional and therefore not a valid promissory note. Logical Explanation: The promise is contingent on an uncertain event (the marriage). A promissory note must be unconditional.
Ans. In a Promissory Note, the promise to pay must be definite and unconditional, or else the instrument is invalid. So, in the given case, the instrument stated in option (d) cannot be considered as a Promissory Note. Because, in this instrument money will be paid after fulfilling some conditions.
Hence, option (d) is the correct answer.
Click here to get Multiple Choice Questions of Negotiable Instrument Act
