LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 15 April 2026

Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, how long does Section 75A excuse delay in presenting a cheque when the delay is caused by a bank strike?

CANARA BANK v. KAVITA CHOWDHARY
2026 INSC 363 · Civil Appeal No. 2587 of 2025
Coram: Ujjal Bhuyan; B.V. Nagarathna
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.75A Negotiable Instruments Act…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Only while the cause of delay operates. Section 75A excuses delay in presentment caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder and not imputable to his default, misconduct or negligence; but the moment the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time is determined under Sections 84(2) and 105 by the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers and the facts of the particular case.

Headnote

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — s.2(g) — Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s.2(11) — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s.75A — s.105 — s.138 — Deficiency in service — Presentment within validity period — Reasonable compensation — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — s.2(g) — Bank receiving cheques for collection — Cheque allowed to become stale — Held: A bank receiving cheques for collection acts as an agent of the customer, bound to present them within the validity period. Allowing them to become stale, unexplained, is negligence in the discharge of banking duties and deficiency in rendering service. (¶59) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s.75A — Delay in presentment — Excuse ceases with its cause — Held further: Delay in presentment is excused only while circumstances beyond the control of the holder operate and are not imputable to his negligence. Once the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made within a reasonable time. (¶56) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s.2(11) — Quantum of compensation — Loss indeterminate — Held further: Compensation must be fair, reasonable and commensurate to the loss or injury proved. Where the loss stays indeterminate, only token compensation is due; 10 percent of the face value was reduced to 6 percent and the appeals disposed of. (¶69, 71, 72)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 56If there is a delay in presentment for acceptance or payment of the cheque, such a delay would be excused under Section 75A if it is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder and not imputable to his default, misconduct or negligence. But the moment the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time for the purpose of presentment for acceptance or payment of a cheque is provided for in Section 84(2) as well as Section 105 which say that for determining what is a reasonable time, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers and the facts of the particular case.
Acts & Sections
s.75A Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.2(g) Consumer Protection Act, 1986s.2(11) Consumer Protection Act, 2019s.105 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.84 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s.2(o) Consumer Protection Act, 1986s.2(42) Consumer Protection Act, 2019s.73 Indian Contract Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of CANARA BANK v. KAVITA CHOWDHARY — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Under the Consumer Protection Act, does a bank that receives cheques for collection and lets them become stale, without any reasonable explanation, commit deficiency in service?How should a consumer forum assess compensation for deficiency in service where the loss suffered is itself indeterminate?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections