is cheque a promissory note..?

Cheque is not a promissory note. As on the date of the cheque the liability should be legaly enforceable. For instance if a cheque is given in discharge of a liablity of a 4 years old promissory note, the liablity is not legal as per the act.

At best a Cheque can be called a 'bill of exchange' but certainly not a promissory note.  The main ingredient of the promissory namely the  "promise to pay" is conspicuously absent in a cheque and hence a cheque cannot at all be called a promissory note.

then wat about presumption as to negotiable instrument's..... and hv heard dat all cheques are promissory note but all promissory notes are not cheques...sir can u please explain..!

when the cheques are issued doesnt that mean that it has beed drafted to acknowledge the debt and fresh limitation has been arose from the date mentioned on the face of cheque coz when drafting the cheque the person who had issued the same acknowledges the debt please ...you are requested to put light on limitation clause with authorities..thanks

For all the presumptins regarding the NI please see the S.118 of the NI Act. The Cheque is not at all a promissory note. The act clearly says "s.4 promissory note, S.6 a cheque".

When a cheque is issued for making a payment of a particular debt, the fresh limiation starts, for this there should be a endorsement either in the cheque or in the promissory note. 

The cheque is not an acknoledgment of a debt. It is only a discharge of a liablity. When there is a debt, the cheque can be issued. The cheque itself is not an acknowledgement.

The cheque as NI is valid for 3 years as per the limitation act. You can file a civil suit on the cheque within three years. But for a criminal liablity the cheque should be presented within 6 months. In case of a cheque bounce, you can file a civil case as well as criminal case.

in Ramakrishnan vs Parthasaradhy on 5/3/2003 it was observed accordingly and it was viewed by hon. Court that Joseph's case cannot be sustained as laying down the correct principle of law, and It is consequently overruled

25. In view of the above, the question as posed at the outset is answered in the negative. It is held that:
(1) When a person issues a cheque, he acknowledges his liability to pay. In the event of the cheque being
dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds he will not be entitled to claim that the debt had become
barred by limitation and that the liability was not thus legally enforceable. He would be liable for penalty in
case the charge is proved against him.

can you please put light on the above..!

Dear Mr. Husain, please give the citation. Thanks.

Only when the drawer agrees that he has given to discharge of a loan, it is an acknowledgement of a liablity, and the fresh limitaion starts from the date of the cheque. A promissory notes gets a fresh limitation when you receive any money on its account. So, a payment thrugh cheque is also gives a fresh limitation to the existing loan.

But, if he takes a defense, that the cheque was misused by the holder of the cheque, the drawee has to prove the existence of legaly enforceable liablity. 

PLS FIND THE ATTACHED CITATION-