Mr. Anil drew a bill of exchange in Kolkata on Mr. Bimal, a resident of New York, and made it payable in Delhi. On maturity, the bill was dishonoured, and Anil sued Bimal in India claiming interest at the rate of 18% as applicable in Kolkata. Bimal contended that his liability was governed by New York law, where the rate of interest was only 6%. Decide the liability of Bimal with reference to the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Section 11 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines an inland instrument as a promissory note, bill of exchange, or cheque drawn or made in India and either payable in India or drawn upon a person resident in India. Section 12 provides that any instrument which is not an inland instrument is deemed to be a foreign instrument.\nFurther, Section 134 of the Act states that in the absence of a contrary contract, the liability of the maker or drawer of a foreign promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is regulated by the law of the place where the instrument is made, whereas the liability of the acceptor or indorser is determined by the law of the place where the instrument is payable.\nHere, the bill was drawn by Anil in Kolkata on Bimal, a resident of New York, and was made payable in Delhi. On dishonour, Anil claimed interest at 18% as per the law prevailing in India, while Bimal claimed that his liability should be limited to 6% under New York law. \nSince the bill was drawn in India but made payable in Delhi, the liability of the acceptor (Bimal) is governed by Indian law, i.e., the law of the place of payment. Therefore, Bimal is liable to pay interest at 18% as claimed by Anil.