2,35,453 1 0 which the plaintiff mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint as the amount due to the bank out of which the plaintiff was giving up the sum of Rs.
10,60,913 8 11 and this was companyfirmed on behalf of the Company by C. B. Samuel himself.
9 A. Does defendant prove that the debit entries are in respect of amounts which she is number liable to pay ?
The High Court remanded the suit to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by it, after raising additional issues if necessary.
9 in the affirmative and issue No.
She also pleaded that the plaintiff had deliberately withheld production of the accounts between 1943 to 1946 during which period most of the transactions took place and that if those accounts were produced she would be in a position to challenge other items as well.
85,453 1 0 was remitted and the suit was laid to recover the sum of Rs.
The application was opposed by the plaintiff.
Adding a sum of Rs.
After remand the Trial Judge amended original issue No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 9 1967 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
The learned Civil Judge found that the letter was number proved to have been obtained by fraud.
9 A. He allowed the parties to lead evidence.
On an elaborate companysideration of the evidence, the Trial Judge answered issue No.
Soon after filing the written statement the defendant filed an application in the Trial Court to direct the plaintiff to produce, among other documents, the accounts from 1943 onwards.
The question number is whether this has to be deducted from the sum of Rs.
25,000/ .
The second letter dated 27th November, 1945 Exhibit 105 is a letter addressed by the Company to the Bank.
68,761 7 0.
The Company opened a current account with the plaintiff bank in 1943 which was later companyverted into an overdraft account with the maximum limit of Rs.
by way of interest from 1st January 1952 till 30th September, 1953, and deducting a sum of Rs.
9 and added issue No.
Having failed to take steps to companypel the plaintiff to produce the accounts earlier, the Court said, she companyld number seek to dispute the items after the plaintiffs had closed the evidence of their side.
The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.
This letter of acknowledgment, as already mentioned by us was alleged by the defendant to have been obtained from her by fraud.
In the letter it was pointed out that while the overdraft balance was Rs.
The suit was, therefore, dismissed.
85,453 1 0 as the plaintiff was doubtful about the recovery of the amount from the defendant, the Court would be justified in deducting the sum of Rs.
On 6th September, 1950, another sum of Rs.
By a subsequent arrangement dated 19th June, 1944, the limit of the overdraft account was raised to Rs.
9,29,540 5 4, on 14th November, 1945.
Alongwith the plaint an extract of the account subsequent to 1946 was filed.
Allowing interest from the various dates of debit, the total amount which has to be deducted from the claim of the plaintiff bank is Rs.
1,50,000/ for the recovery of which alone this suit was filed.
As this amount with interest was less than the amount of Rs.
No doubt she had filed an application soon afterwards to direct the plaintiff to produce the accounts and other documents within two weeks, but when the plaintiff failed to produce the accounts within two weeks, she did number take any further action in the matter.
85,453 1 0 which had been given up by the plaintiff in the plaint, the High Court affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court.
6,81,242 9 5.
By her letter Exhibit 55 dated 2nd February 1952, the defendant acknowledged her personal guarantee to repay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.
Shri Bal further urged that the suit was barred by limitation.
The overdraft facility was utilised by the Company and amounts were drawn from the Bank at various times.
The defendant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay.
He held that the defendant, who was a highly educated lady, had subscribed her signature to Exhibit 55 fully knowing its companytents.
D. Bal, Mrs. Jayashree Wad and S. B. Wad for the Appellant.
The finding of the High Court in regard to the various debit items were greatly influenced by a group of three letters Exhibit 104, dated 30th June, 1945, Exhibit 105 dated 27th November, 1945 and Exhibit 106 dated 6th December, 1945 signed by the defendant herself as Director of the Company.
1,15,229 15 0 was received from the Director General of Food Supplies and credited to the account or the Company.
85,453 1 0 or from the sum of Rs.
The defence of Margaret Samuel, to the extent that is relevant for the purposes of the present appeal, was that the suit was barred by limitation, that the letter dated 2nd February, 1952 was obtained from her by fraud and that she was, in any case, number liable to pay amounts disputed by her in paragraph 15 of her written statement.
68,761 7 0 were number provide to be binding on the defendant.
At the trial the plaintiff relied primarily upon Exhibit 55 the letter of acknowledgment dated 2nd February, 1952.
247 of 1960.
He said that when the defendant filed Exhibit 85, proposing that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the debit items, the plaintiff opposed the application.
The High Court held that the suit was number barred by limitation.
The third letter is Exhibit 106 dated 6th December, 1945.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDDY, J. The defendant in the action is the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
C. Mahajan, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagraja and P. N. Puri for the Respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court thought that since the plaintiff had given up the sum of Rs.
Jal Karanjia, C. B. Samuel and the defendant were Directors of the Company.
The first of the letters Exhibit 104, is a letter addressed by the Bank to the Company informing the latter that the balance due at the foot of the account as on 30th June, 1945, was Rs.
It is signed by the defendant on behalf of the Company.
By this letter the Company companyplained about the dishonour of two cheques for Rs.
C. B. Samuel died on 27th April 1951.
4,90,523 5 7.
2,35,453 1 On 8th November, 1954 the present suit was filled by the Bank to enforce the guarantee bond against the defendant Margaret Samuel and to recover a sum of Rs.
An irrevocable power of attorney authorsing the bank to do so was executed by C. B. Samuel as Managing Director of the Company.
The Appellate Court was, therefore, unjustified in giving a further opportunity to the plaintiff to prove the debit items.
The learned Civil Judge also held that there was numberproper proof of the several debit items and that they were suspicious.
1,50,000/ with further interest and companyts.
The letter companytains an endorsement by the defendant as a Director of the Company companyfirming the companyrectness of the statement.
The Company ceased business on 30th June 1946, and thereafter the Company entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff bank by which the plaintiff bank was authoroised to receive all amounts due from the Director General of Food Supplies, Government of India, or from any other person or Department and appropriate the sums companylected towards the money due to the bank from the Company.
The plaintiff filed an appeal to the High Court of Bombay.
Thereafter the Trial of the suit was companycluded.
All Bills and documents were accordingly handed over to the plaintiff bank for realisation of the amount due to the Company.
9 A in the negative basing his companyclusion primarily on Exhibit 99 a letter dated 30th June 1950, passed by the Company in favour of the bank acknowledging that the balance due at the foot of the over draft account as on 30th June, 1950 was Rs.
20,000/ each despite the fact that the Company had number exceeded the overdraft limit.
Both these debits were made prior to 1st December, 1945, and, therefore, we do number think we will be justified in excluding them.
He, however, held that the suit was barred by limitation.
Subsequently, however, an extract of the accounts from 1943 to 1946 was produced on 1st September 1955, the date of hearing of the suit.
In 1943 Kawasji Karanjia and JaI Karanjia and C. B. Samuel, husband of the defendant, floated a companypany known as the Modern Hindustan Food Products Ltd. at Poona.
The two issues which were tried by him were issues 9 and 9 A which were as follows Does plaintiff prove the items in dispute as given in the written statement and in Ex.
2133 of 1968.
It was stated in the plaint that a sum of Rs.
The High Court companysidered the evidence relating to each item of debit in great detail and found that debit items amounting to Rs.
Shri Bal also objected to two items of debit dated 30th September, 1944 and 30th June 1945, representing amounts transferred from the Companys account to the personal account of C.B. Samuel.
1,50,000/ from her.
The plaintiff did number produce the documents within the time allowed.
2,71,531 8 6 which was stated to be the balance due to the plaintiff from the Company as on 31st December, 1951.
80,894 8 4.
1,50,000/ only.
21,886 6 Ans 0 ps.
57,964 14 6 said to be the amount recovered between those dates, the balance due on 8th November, 1954, was stated to be Rs.
The Trial Judge by his order dated 10th March 1955 directed the plaintiff to produce the documents within 2 weeks from the date.
On 10th October, 1955, the defendant filed Exhibit 85, an application seeking a direction from the Court that the plaintiff be allowed to produce any documentary evidence which they might possess in support of the items mentioned in the schedules even till the time the evidence is finished and the defendant be allowed to deny, under the circumstances mentioned all the items mentioned in Schedule B, with her explanation for the items.
Alongwith the application the defendant filed two schedules, Schedule A showing the items specifically denied by the defendant in her written statement and schedule B showing the items which were denied by her after the accounts from 1943 to 1946 were produced in Court by the plaintiff.
