Chapter XVI - Of International Law
Section 137
Section 137: Presumption about foreign instrument law
Section 137 creates a rebuttable presumption that foreign law concerning promissory notes, bills and cheques is the same as Indian law until the contrary is proved.
On this page
Need advice on Section 137?
This article is for general information. Refer to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 official text for the official provisions. If you need professional advice for your situation, contact Bizeneed.
Statutory text
Bare law
The law of any foreign country regarding promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques shall be presumed to be the same as that of India, unless and until the contrary is proved.
Key rule and applicability
The rule supplies an evidentiary starting point for the foreign law governing these instruments. Unless and until a difference is proved, the foreign law is presumed to be the same as Indian law. A party relying on a different foreign rule should therefore identify and establish that difference through the applicable evidentiary process.
Limits and related provisions
A presumption is not a factual assertion that every country has identical negotiable-instrument law. Proof of a different rule displaces the assumption for the matter established. This provision also does not replace the separate question of which country's law is relevant under Sections 134 to 136, or justify using an unverified online summary as settled foreign law.
Hypothetical business example
Hypothetical: A dispute involves a bill payable overseas. One party says a foreign notice rule differs from the Indian rule. The party gathers appropriate material establishing that difference; until the contrary is proved, Section 137 states the presumption rather than confirming that the claimed foreign rule is correct.
Practical decision flow
Identify the foreign-law question and why that country's law is relevant to the instrument dispute.
Determine whether a different foreign rule is being asserted and obtain reliable material and advice on proving it.
Separate the statutory presumption from any foreign-law difference actually established in the proceeding.
Practical checklist
Do
- Identify the foreign-law question and why that country's law is relevant to the instrument dispute.
- Determine whether a different foreign rule is being asserted and obtain reliable material and advice on proving it.
- Separate the statutory presumption from any foreign-law difference actually established in the proceeding.
Avoid
- A presumption is not a factual assertion that every country has identical negotiable-instrument law. Proof of a different rule displaces the assumption for the matter established. This provision also does not replace the separate question of which country's law is relevant under Sections 134 to 136, or justify using an unverified online summary as settled foreign law.
Glossary
- Presumption of similarity
- The assumption stated by Section 137 until contrary foreign law is proved.
- Proof of foreign law
- Establishing the relevant foreign rule through the applicable evidentiary process.
Frequently asked questions
Does the section say all countries actually use Indian law?
No. It creates a rebuttable presumption for the specified instruments.
Can a different foreign rule be relied on?
Yes, but the contrary must be proved to displace the statutory assumption on that issue.
Does it choose which country's law governs?
It states a presumption about foreign law; the relevant connecting-law questions must be assessed separately.
Need help applying this provision to your situation?
Contact BizeneedLast updated 10 October 2026