The said agent has further stated in his evidence that from the visual appearance of the cheque, numberinfirmity was numbered by him and from the tenor of the cheque it appeared to be a genuine one.
The plaintiff Bank of Maharashtra, the appellant herein, instituted the said Civil Suit No.
Such cheque bore the date May 29, 1967 and was issued in the name of Imperial Tube and Hardware Mart and the amount under the cheque was Rs.
170 of 1973 dated February 22, 1974, affirming the judgment and decree of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thana, in Civil Suit No.
363 of 1979 for recovering a sum of Rs.
The said cheque was sent to the clearing house by the Union Bank of India Ltd. and on presentation of the said cheque for payment the plaintiff Bank passed the cheque for Rs.
The defendant thereafter raised an objection some time in the third week of June, 1967 that the amount of cheque at Exhibit 54 was wrongly debited for Rs.
661 of 1974.
In the first week of June, 1967, the plaintiff Bank forwarded statement of account to the defendant.
The agent of the plantiff Bank at the relevant time was examined as a witness for the bank and he has stated that before passing the said cheque for payment, he had checked the serial number and the date of the cheque and also companypared the signature of the defendant appearing on the cheque with the specimen signature of the defendant.
The appellant Bank thereafter preferred a second appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Civil Appeal No.
One firm named M s. Imperial Tube and Hardware Mart opened an account with the Union Bank of India Ltd., Thana Branch on May 26, 1967.
5,920.12 on account of principal and the balance on account of interest.
363 of 1970 dated April 27, 1973.
6,500/ and debited the said amount to the account of the defendant.
The agent of the plaintiff Bank thereafter went to the Union Bank of India Ltd., Thana Branch, and on examining the cheque under the ultraviolet ray lamp it transpired that the original cheque was issued in favour of one Shri G.R. Pardawala and the amount under the said cheque was Rs.
The defendant respondent, M s. Automotive Engineering Company, is a partnership firm and the said partnership firm opened a current account with the same branch of the plaintiff Bank.
363 of 1970 in the Court of Additional Joint Judge, Thana.
363 of 1970 was instituted by the Bank of Maharashtra.
95.98.
The defendant thereafter made demands to the plaintiff bank to credit the same amount to his account.
The Additional District Judge was of the view that the Branch at Thana was just on the out skirt of the metropolitan city of Bombay where forgery was very rampant and the amount being heavy, the bank ought to have been more careful and sincere the defendant was available on phone, the bank should have taken such caution in companytacting the defendant for proper verification before making payment.
7,452/ , companyprising Rs.
The learned Additional District Judge was of the view that the bank was under an obligation to exercise ordinary prudence and skill and visual inspection of the cheque might have absolved the bank from its liability, but in a companymercial place like Thana the bank was number entitled to such protection for the lapse in number subjecting the said cheque for scrutiny under the ultraviolet ray lamp when such facility was available easily and other branches of the bank had also kept such ultraviolet ray lamp.
The relevant facts companycerning the instant appeal may be stated as follows The plaintiff is a nationalised bank carrying on the business of banking under the name of Bank of Maharashtra and it opened a branch at Wagle Industrial Estate, Thana.
The appellant Bank thereafter preferred Civil Appeal No.
In the aforesaid facts, the said Suit No.
6,500/ .
The writing on the cheque was chemically altered with regard to the date, the name of the payee and also the amount.
6,500/ .
The endorsement on the cheque was also verified by him and after such verification the cheque was passed by him for payment.
It, however, transpires from the evidences adduced in the said suit that the said Thana Branch of the plaintiff Bank had numberultraviolet ray lamp for scrutinising the cheques although in other branches of the said bank, such lamp was made available.
20,000/ in its account with the plaintiff Bank.
661 of 1974 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Joint Judge, Thana, in Civil Appeal No.
N. Ray, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay dated March 3, 1981 passed in Second Appeal No.
The said account was represented by its proprietor, Mr. B.M. Shah The said Mr. Shah presented a cheque being Exhibit 54 to the Union Bank of India Ltd., Thana Branch, for crediting the amount in his account in the said bank.
At the time of debiting the amount, the defendant firm had a credit of Rs.
