Assertion (A) : Where a bill is unintentionally cancelled by the holder or his agent and the cancellation is not apparent thereon, the bill is discharged.
Reason (R) : Above principle is laid down in Section 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Code :
This question requires evaluating an Assertion (A) and a Reason (R) concerning the discharge of a bill under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Assertion (A) states that if a bill is unintentionally cancelled by the holder or agent and the cancellation isn't apparent, the bill is discharged.
Therefore, Assertion (A) is incorrect.
Reason (R) claims the principle in Assertion (A) is laid down in Section 82 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Therefore, Reason (R) is incorrect because it misattributes the flawed principle in Assertion (A) to Section 82.
As both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are found to be incorrect based on the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the correct option is that both are wrong.
| List – I | List – II |
| i. Inchoate stamped instrument | a. Union Bank of India Vs. Ankur Corp. |
| ii. Liability of acceptor of a negotiable instrument | b. Section 31 of the Negotiable Instrument Act |
| iii. Liability of an endorser | c. Section 35 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. |
| iv. Liability of the drawee of a cheque. | d. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. |