Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

What is the term used to describe an endorsement in which the endorser excludes his own liability on the negotiable instrument in case of dishonour of the instrument?

What is the term used to describe an endorsement in which the endorser excludes his own liability on the negotiable instrument in case of dishonour of the instrument? Correct Answer Sans recourse endorsement

Related Questions

Propositions as regards the liability of the surety under the surety bond are:
1. The liability of the surety is mutually exclusive of the liability of the accused under his personal bond.
2. The liability of the surety is contingent on the liability of the accused under his personal bond the liability of the surety.
3. is limited to the amount of the surety bond.
Now which of the following is correct
Under which section of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882, the 'Dishonour of Negotiable Instrument by Non-Payment' is covered?
As per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, presumption in regard to the date of a negotiable instrument is that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn:
S1: As I say, I was born and brought up in an atmosphere of the confluence of three movements, all of which were revolutionary.
P: I was born in a family which had to live its own life, which led me from my young days to seek guidance for my own self-expression in my own inner standard of judgement.
Q: No poet should borrow his medium ready-made from some shop of respectability.
R: But the language which belonged to the people had to be modulated according to the urging which I as an individual had.
S: The medium of expression, doubtless, was my mother tongue.
S6: He should not only have his own seeds but prepare his own soil.

The Proper sequence should be:
Under section 16 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 'endorsement in blank' of an instrument means:
Where an indorser of an instrument excludes his liability and afterwards becomes the holder of the instrument, who are liable to him?
Anjum is counting his last days, he keeps half his property for his wife and divides the rest equally among his three sons: Bimar, Cumar and Danger. Some years later, Bimar dies, leaving half his property to his widow and half to his brothers, Cumar and Danger together, sharing equally. When Cumar makes his will, he keeps half his property for his widow and the rest he bequeaths to his younger brother Danger. When Danger dies some years later, he keeps half his property for his widow and the remaining for his mother. The mother now has Rs. 1575000. What was the worth of the total property?
Which of the following is/are false about Dishonour of Cheque?
1. Section 138 defines Dishonour of cheque in terms of issues such as insufficiency of funds in the account.
2. Such cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of twelve months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.
3. Imprisonment for such offence may be extended for period of five year.
4. Section 138 apply unless - the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Captain Jack Sparrow, on his death bed, keeps half his property for this wife and divides the rest equally among his three sons: Barbossa, Will Turner and Dave. Some years later, Barbossa dies leaving half his property to his widow and half to his brothers Will Turner and Dave together, sharing equally. When Will Turner makes his will, he keeps half his property for his widow and the rest he bequeaths to his younger brother Dave. When Dave dies some years later, he keeps half his property for his widow and the remaining for his mother. The mother now has Rs. 1,575,000.What was the worth of the total property?
Directions : In each of the following questions a statement is given, followed by two conclusions. Give answer : Statements : In a highly centralised power structure, in which even senior cabinet ministers are prepared to reduce themselves to pathetic countries or yesmen airing views that are primarily intended to anticipate or reflect the Prime Minister's own performances, there can be no place for any consensus that is quite different from real or contrived unanimity of opinion, expressed through a well orchestrated endorsement of the leader's actions. Conclusions : I. The Ministers play safe by not giving anti-government views. II. The Prime Minister does not encourage his colleagues to render their own views.