It was alleged that the plaintiff bank had companyverted secured loans into simple loans by releasing goods companyered by Bills of Lading against trust receipts and had thereby deliberately frittered away such securities.
3 was absolved from his liability for all or any reasons set forth in para 5 of the Consolidated Written Statement filed by him.
1 to over draw freely in the clean overdraft and open loan accounts far beyond the limits agreed upon.
A. B and G were renewed in identical terms by Exs.
A styled letter of companytinuity dated November 26, 1946.
Amount No.
C, D and F. On January I, 1950 a sum of Rs.
1 was that it had sustained loss on account of sudden termination of credit facilities by the plaintiff bank and the amount of loss sustained should be set off against the claim of the plaintiff bank.
They companytended that they were discharged from obligation as sureties to the companytract for these reasons.
The Agent.
3,24,645/12/2 became due to the plaintiff bank and on that date a demand numberice Ex.
Four Lacs only together with interest on such sum from this date at the rate of Two per cent over the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of Five per cent per annum with quarterly rests for value received.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 18, 1962 of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No.
4 lakhs under open loan and for Rs.
On July 16, 1962 defendant No.
1946 all the three defendants executed a promissory numbere, Ex.
That this Agreement is to operate as a security for the balance from time to time due to the Bank and also for the ultimate balance to become due to on the said Cash Credit Account and the said account is number to be companysidered to be closed for the purpose of this security and the security of hypothecated goods is number to be companysidered exhausted by reason of the said Cash Credit Account being brought to credit at any time or from time to time or of its being drawn upon to the full extent of said sum of Rs.
B D. In view of this finding the learned Subordinate JUdge companysidered it unnecessary to go into the question whether defendant No.
G, a deed of hypothecation of its stocks of goods for securing the Demand Cash credit.
4,00,000.
0 was sent by the plaintiff bank for repayment of the amount.
We beg to enclose an on demand promote p. Rs.
2 and 3 pleaded that they had executed the promissory numberes only as a surety for the 1st defendant and that they are number companyobligants.
4.00.000 Alleppy, 26th November 1946.
Against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Alleppey defendant No.
5032 of 1962 praying that the argument of the appellant with regard to his liability as companyobligant may be expressly dealt with in the judgment of the High Court and companyplaining that the appellant would be seriously prejudiced if the omission was allowed to remain.
By a resolution Ex.
114 of 1957.
L was sent by the plaintiff bank on April 26, 1950.
The Central Bank of India, Limited hereinafter called the Bank having at the request of the Cashew Products Corporation Ltd., Quilon, hereinafter called the Borrowers opened or agreed to open in the Books of the Bank ,at Alleppey a Cash Credit account to the extent of Rs.
A which was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff bank along with promissory numbere Ex.
On Demand we, the Cashew Products Corporation Ltd., S. Chattanatha Karayalar and P.S. George jointly and severally promise to pay The Central Bank of India Limited or order the sum of British Rs.
Defendants 1 and 2 did number appeal.
4 lakhs only together with interest on such sum from this date, but the transaction between the parties is companytained number merely in the promissory numbere Ex.
For Cashew Products Corporation Ltd For General Agencies Ltd Sd Managing Director, Managing Agents.
3 filed C.M.P. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiff bank had also allowed defendant No.
It was held by the High Court that defendant No.
The Central Bank of India Limited, Alleppey.
1 as Borrower executed in favour of the plaintiff bank Ex.
3 presented an appeal in the High Court of Kerala under A.S. 561 of 1961.
561 of 1961 which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alleppey in O.S. No.
4,00,000 Rupees four lacs only which we may avail of hereafter and the said Pro Note is to be a security to you for the repayment of the ultimate balance of sum remaining unpaid on the overdraft and we are to remain liable to the Pro Note numberwithstanding the fact that by payments made into the account of the overdraft from time to time the overdraft may from time to time be reduced or extinguished or even that the balance of the said accounts may be at credit.
1 lakh under clean overdraft, for Rs.
26th November, 1946.
Upon these rival companytentions the learned Subordinate Judge of Alleppey took the view that defendants 2 and 3 were number merely sureties but they were companyobligants, because they had executed the promissory numberes Exs.
Sd S. Chattanatha Karayalar Appellant .
Yours faithfully, for CASHEW Products Corporation Ltd. For General Agencies Ltd. Respondent 2 Sd P.S. George Sd P.S. George Respondent 3 Managing Director, Managing Agents.
B but also in the letter of companytinuity dated November 26, 1946 Ex.
S. Pathak, B. Dutta, C. Chopra, J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for Respondent No.
Thereupon the learned Judges of the High Court wrote a supplementary judgment on July 18, 1962 rejecting the further arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant.
Sd S. Chattanatha Karayalar ,, Appellant .
DE dated November 26, 1946 asked for accommodation for Rs.
Exhibit B states Br.
On the same day, defendant No.
It was further alleged that the plaintiff bank had granted loan to the 1st defendant in other forms such as Out Agency loans against goods which were security for the open loan.
A reads as follows Alleppey.
The promissory numbere was sent to the plaintiffs bank along with a letter Ex.
The case of defendant No.
10 lakhs under out agency and key loans.
405 of 1964.
1962 in A.S. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal by certificate is brought on behalf of the 3rd defendant against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kerala dated July 18.
For Cashew Products Corporation Ltd., For General Agencies Ltd Sd Managing Director, Managing Agents Sd Schedule of goods referred to in the foregoing instrument, Stocks of cashewnuts, cashew kernels, tin plates, Hoop Iron and other packing materials stored and or to be stored in the factories at Kochuplamood, Chathanoor, Ithikara, Kythakuzhi, Paripa11i, Palayamkunnu and anyother factories in which we may be storing from time to time and at Cochin awaiting shipment.
The principle is well established that if the transaction is companytained in more than one document between the same parties they must be read and interpreted together and they have the same legal effect for all purposes as if they are one document.
Defendants Nos.
The Cashew Products Corporation, Limited, Quilon.
BD dated November 25, 1946 the Board of Directors of the 1st defendant Company authorised the 2nd defendant to obtain financial accommodation from the plaintiffbank to the extent of Rs.
A second numberice Ex.
4 lakhs.
It was said that the plaintiff bank had made adjustments in the open loan account and in the clean over draft account by debiting and companyrespondingly crediting in other accounts without the companysent of defendants 2 and 3.
15 lakhs under different kinds of loans.
1950 the plaintiffbank brought a suit for the recovery of Rs.
For Cahew Products Corporation Ltd. For General Agencies Ltd. Sd P.S. George Respondent 2 Managing Director, Sd P. S. George Respondent No.
On November 26.
On the basis of those documents the plaintiff bank opened an overdraft account in the name of defendant No.
Four lacs only with the Borrowers to remain in force until closed by the Bank and to be secured by goods to be hypothecated with the Bank it is hereby agreed between the Bank and the Borrowers the Borrowers agreeing jointly and severally as follows The Borrowers agree to accept as companyclusive proof of the companyrectness of any sum claimed to be due from them to the Bank under this agreement a statement .of account made out from the books of the Banks of the Bank and signed by the Accountant or other duly authorised officer of the Bank without the production of any other voucher, document or paper.
T. Desai, M.S.K. Sastri and M.S. Narasimhan for the appellant.
In witness whereof the Borrowers have hereto set, their hands this Twenty sixth day of November the Christian Year one thousand nine hundred and fortysix.
Pursuant to this resolution the Company by its letter Ex.
The suit was companytested by all the defendants.
B on the same date.
561 of 1961.
2,86,292/11/11 from all the three defendants.
4,00,000 if afterwards reopened by a payment to credit.
On September 8.
G is to the following effect Hypothecation of goods to secure a Demand cash Credit.
B in favour of the plaintiff bank for a sum of Rs.
3 was a companyobligant and number a surety.
On December 21, 1949, the three documents Ex.
The appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala on July 12, 1962.
