According to the Bank, defendants 1 and 2 carried on business at Bihar Sharif under the name and style of Messrs.jogilal Prabhu Chand.
35,000/ .
Further, according to the Bank, on August 30, 1947 a false and mischievous telegram purporting to be from defendant No.
35,000/ be made available to the firm immediately.
35,000/ as alleged by the Bank for taking delivery of 42 bales of cloth which had been allotted to them by M s. Manohardass jainarain, wholesale dealers of Patna, they companytended that the second defendant was informed that under the rules the Bank companyld advance a loan only upon the goods actually kept in the custody of the Bank.
Thereafter the Potdar and the second defendant, along With one Mahadeo Ram, a servant of the Firm left for Patna by bus.
It was after this that the telegram mentioned in the plaint was sent to Mr. Kapur and a report lodged with the Police at Patna.
50,000/ as further security 2 that the firm should draw a cheque for Rs, 35,000/ endorsed to self 3 that the second defendant should further agree that instead of taking the amount in cash with himself he should let the amount be sent by the Manager, Mr. Kapur, through Ram Bharosa Singh, Potdar of the Bank for being paid to M s. Manohardass jainarain, and 4 that after paying the amount the said Potdar would take delivery of the bales of cloth allotted to the Firm and bring them to the premises of the Bank at Bihar Sharif where they would remain pledged until the loan was repaid.
On February 17, 1941, they,executed a cash credit agreement in favour of the Bank under which cash credit facilities were sanctioned up to a limit of Rs.
These allegations are said by the Bank to be false and the suit Out of which this appeal arises was instituted for the recovery of the amount for which the cheque was drawn by the Firm on August 29, 1947 and actually cashed by the Manager.
35,000/ provided certain companyditions were fulfilled.
50,000/against cloth bales on certain terms.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 11, 1958, of the Patna High Court in F. Appeal No.
He assured the second defendant that he would bring along with him the sum of Rs.
The telegram companytained a further request that the amount of Rs.
on the next morning and after it was handed over to Mr. Kapur, he went inside the treasury of the Bank alone with the potdar and returned with something wrapped in a gamchha and tied it round the waist of the Potdar and said that the latter would hand over the money to M s. Manohardass jainarain, take delivery of the goods and bring them to the premises of the Bank where they would be kept in pledge.
The second defendant then went to the promises of M s. Manohardass jainarain and waited for the Potdar to turn up.
According to them, the suit was a companynterblast to a criminal case instituted by them against the Manager and the Potdar of the Bihar Sharif brunch of the Bank charging them with misappropriation.
As he did number companye within a reasonable time, he went to the Patna City Branch of the Bank only to discover that the Potdar was number there either.
Those companyditions were 1 that the Firm should execute a loan bond as well as a promissory numbere for Rs.
Under that agreement a sum of Rs.
35,000/ .
15,000/ was advanced to the Firm on that very day.
Nothing, however, happened and, therefore, the defendants filed a criminal companyplaint against Mr. Kapur a, well as the Potdar.
50,000/ and approached the Manager for immediate advance of Rs.
C. Chatterjee, M. K. Ramamurthy, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the respondent No.
340 of 1960.
The second defendant says that on his return to Bihar Sharif on August 30, he saw Mr. Kapur and told the whole story to him whereupon Mr. Kapur said that he should number worry and that he would see to it that the bales were released soon by M s. Manohardass jainarain.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civi Appeal No.
On September 9, 1947 the Manager received a letter signed by Mahabir Lal alleging that in companylusion with the Potdar he, the Manager had misappropriated the sum of Rs.
The Firm thus denied that the sum of Rs.35,000/ was actually paid or advanced to them by the Manager of the Bihar Sharif branch of the Bank.
On August 28, 1947 the Firm executed a promissory numbere in favour of the Bihar Sharif branch of the Bank for Rs.
On September 1, 1947 the Manager informed the Firm that the allegations in the telegram were altogether false.
They further alleged that the Manager said that in order to oblige the Firm he was prepared to advance, Rs.
On the basis of this agreement, the Firm drew a cheque for Rs.
Then according to the Bank, an arrangement was entered into between the Firm and the Manager of the Bihar Sharif branch of the Bank under which the Firm was allowed to draw on the security of the promissory numbere on its agreeing to pledge the bales of cloth as further security after they were received from the wholesalers.
35,000/ as they required that amount for paying the price of certain cloth allotted to them by M s. Manohardas jainarain, wholesale dealers of Patna.
The defendants denied the claim of the Bank as false.
While the defendants admitted that they had made arrangements with the Bihar Sharif branch of the Bank for a loan of Rs.
According to the Firm, a cheque was drawn at 5.00 a. in.
35,000/ .
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. This is an appeal by a certificate granted by the Patna High Court allowing the appeal preferred before it by the defendants 1 and 2 and dismissing the claim of the plaintiff Bank the appellant before us for a sum of Rs.
35,000/ on August 29, 1947 in favour of the second defendant, which was, according to the Bank, actually passed for payment by the Manager of the Bihar Sharif Branch of the Bank and the amount was paid to the second defendant.
Sarjoo Prasad and R. C. Prasad, for the appellant.
230 of 1950.
February 7.
2, Mahabir Lal, was received by the Manager of the Bihar Sharif branch of the Bank saying that the Potdar of the Bank who was sent along with him with the money by the Manager had number deposited it and that the Potdar companyld number be traced.
On reaching the ekka stand of Patna, the Potdar asked the second defendant to proceed to the premises of M s. Manohardas jainarain saying that as he had to go to, the Patna City Branch of the Bihar Bank, he would follow later.
