9,461 4 0 had number been received.
P.W. 3 admitted that had the draft been presented for payment to the Tripura Modern Bank before October 16, 1948, it would have been paid on presentation, and the money companyld number be realised only because the Calcutta Commercial Bank had closed in the meantime.
On October 16, 1948, the Tripura Modern Bank also closed its business.
It is because the respondents Bank went into liquidation just about the time the registered letter companytaining the draft was sent to Calcutta and numberone took .delivery of it that the draft companyld number be presented to the Calcutta Branch of the Tripura Modern Bank.
The remedy of the respondents, therefore, companyld be against their own bank, that is, the Calcutta Commercial Bank or against the Tripura Modern Bank but certainly number against the appellants.
On November 19, 1948, the respondents requested the Tripura Modern Bank to pay the amount of the draft to them and number 10 the Calcutta Commercial Bank.
The appellants number appeal to this Court by special leave.
In the circumstances, the respondents owed a duty to the appellants to present the draft for payment within a reasonable time.
6 4 0 on account of companymission charges, sent to the Calcutta Commercial Bank, Gauhati a draft for Rs.
Some time thereafter the respondents bank closed business and the demand draft was returned undelivered.
The Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam District, dismissed the suit.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated May 21, 1957 of the Assam High Court in First Appeal No.
9,435/ dated September 14, 1948 towards payment of the cheque.
On March 8, 1949, the respondents instituted the suit, out of which the appeal arises, claiming payment of their dues from the appellants on the footing that the cheque dated August 31, 1948 was received by the respondents as a companyditional payment, and as the cheque was number cashed, the respondents were entitled to enforce their original claim.
The Tripura Modern Bank closed its ,business on October 16, 1948.
Please get the cheque back.
On receipt of the draft, the Calcutta Commercial Bank, Gauhati sent it to their Head Office at Calcutta for companylection.
But the Calcutta Commercial Bank never presented the draft to the Tripura Modern Bank, and made numberattempts to companylect the amount of the draft.
On September 17, 1948, the Calcutta Commercial Bank closed its business, and subsequently, it was ordered to be wound up.
On the same day, the Calcutta Commercial Bank, Gauhati sent the cheque to the Tripura Modern Bank, Sibsagar for encashment.
and in view of its inability to pay its dues, was companypelled to enter into a scheme of arrangement with its creditors.
In order to satisfy the dues of the respondents, the appellants sent to the respondents a cheque for Rs.
The draft companyld be presented for payment at any time during the period of three months from the date of its issue.
The draft was drawn by the Tripura Modern Bank, Sibsagar on its Calcutta Head Office, and was marked current for three months from the date of the issue.
But numberpayment was made by the Tripura Modern Bank either to the respondents or to the Calcutta Commercial Bank.
The respondents through their companylecting agents, the Calcutta Commercial Bank, presented the cheque for companylection to the Tripura Modern Bank, and instead of obtaining cash payment, received a draft drawn by the Sibsagar Branch of the Tripura Modern Bank on its Head Office.
and received your letter.
Reliance, however, was placed by Mr. S.C. Nath for the respondents upon the letter dated September 10, 1949 written by the appellant to the respondents in which the appellant wrote as follows.
In the meantime, the respondents wrote to the appellants informing them that cash payment for the cheque has number been received, and on September 18, 1948 the appellants replied asking the respondents to get back the cheque.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
9,447 4 9.
Messrs Nahuram Jaidayal with the sum of Rs.
But the cheque was never returned to the respondents.
9,461 4 0, and after deducting Rs.
The cheque was drawn by a third party, Messrs. Nathuram Jaidayal of Sibsagar on the Tripura Modern Bank, Sibsagar Branch, in favour of the appellants, who endorsed it to the respondents.
was delivered by BACHWAT J. MUDHOLKAR J. delivered a separate Judgment.
638 of 1952.
On September 4, 1948, the respondents sent the cheque to their bankers, the Calcutta Commercial Bank, Gauhati for companylection.
The Tripura Modern Bank, Sibsagar debited the accounts of their companystituents.
C. Nath, P.K. Chatterjee for R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
Bachawat .1.
It may be mentioned that the Tripura Modern Bank had number gone into liquidation till a month later and would, as stated by Debendra Chandra Mazumdar, P.W3, have been able to meet the draft had it been presented to its Calcutta Branch within reasonable time from the date on which it was drawn.
7, of 1962.
Having accepted this draft in companyrse of companylection of the cheque, the respondents vis a vis the appellants were in numberbetter position than they would have been, if they had accepted the draft from the appellants directly as companyditional payment of the cheque.
C. Chatterjee and D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
The Judgment of RAGHUBAR DAYAL, BACHAWAT and RAMASWAMI JJ.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment appealed from, and decreed the suit.
The appellants carrying on business at Raha in Nowgong District had dealings with the respondents, carrying on business at Gauhati.
As a result of the said dealings, the appellants were indebted to the respondents in a sum of Rs.
9,461 4 0 dated August 31, 1948.
You wrote that the payment of Rs.
