Meaning of Dishonour’s information
There is the liability of many individuals behind a negotiable tool and they are variously concerned with it. If the equipment is dishonest, they’re all affected. To affect them and make them responsive, it is necessary that on the humiliation of a tool, they should forgive their information. According to Section 93 of Indian negotiable equipment.
The Act, as the device becomes dishonest, is the duty of the holder to inform other parties in this regard. If he doesn’t notify, other parties will not be liable for the quantity of the equipment. So, to make them responsive, it’s quite necessary that they be informed accordingly.
It is clear that in the case of humiliation, information should be given by notice. If due to their negligence, the holder does not inform at a reasonable time, other parties will automatically be free of liability, especially in the case when former parties have somehow damaged. For example, if the tool orderer is notified about humiliation, and after some time, he becomes rebellion, he will be free of equipment’s liability. But the promiser or acceptable has not been notified, they will not be free of liability.
Who should inform?
On the humiliation of any device, information about humiliation should be liable in relation to the equipment by the holder, supportor, or another person. So, if by responsive to any party, information is given to other party, the holder will get its benefit as put in the case of Horison vs Escoi. In case former vs Smith, according to the decision, if information about any bill, check or promosary note humiliation is given by some uncontrolled person, it will neither be legal nor acceptable.
It is also an important case that due to the information given by the holder, if some party gets free of liability, and if it passes this information to another party, such information will be ineffective because, the informationist is not liable.
Information through a representative: Information about the humiliation can also be given by a representative. It is not necessary for the representative to whom he is giving information. Being a representative, he can also send information under his name. Here, it is not necessary that he should be representative of that party and the information given will be quite valid.
Who should have the information.
gave?
The following are cases in which the information is given to the proper party:
(1) Intent to be made- other than promier, acceptable or person, not all of those other parties need to be informed necessary because they are insulting the bill or pronot themselves. It’s also clear that people who receive information can be responsive. So, if the holder wants to make all the previous parties responsive, then all of them should be given information. It’s likely that only when giving information to the supporter, he cannot give information to others.
(2) Representative-If the party is not available, the information may be given to their representative, which may be able to inform their owner and other related parties within reasonable time.
(3) For liquidity- If any party is receiving information, information may be given to official liquidation.
(4) Official successor- If some party expires, the information of humiliation should be given to the legal heir.
(5) For joint closiders- If some means are jointly supported by different persons, for justification, they.
6. Should be informed separately. But if one of these is authorized to direct all activities, all of them should not be given information.
(6) In case of a firm, company or organisation- if information is to be given to a firm, company or an organization, personal information is not required. It is enough to inform any secretary, owner, or any officer of the body.
(7) Hindu undivided family- In case of a Hindu undivided family, information should be given to the head of the family, mostly named as ‘Karta’.
