as pointed out at p. 300 in Chalmers on Bills of Exchange 8th ed companysequently an authority to an agent to receive a payment due to his principal is number in itself an authority to receive it by bill or cheque.
The main companytention of the appellant in the Courts below was that the respondent had accepted the demand draft on its own responsibility.
On January 2, 1947, the Bharati Central Bank closed its business.
as the cheques were returned unpaid by the drawee bank the respondent have made a debit entry on December 11, 1960 of Rs.
Therefore.
No doubt, according to him.
8,800 companyered by a cheque or cheques on the Bharati Central Bank Limited, Shillong Branch?
Indeed.
In respect of the draft, the respondent duly preferred a claim in the liquidation of the Bharati Central Bank, and was admitted as a preferential creditor for the amount of the draft.
1954 the liquidator of the respondent Bank presented an application to the Assam High Court under s. 45 D of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 for settlement of the list of debtors, claiming a decree for Rs.
This explains why, as admitted by Dutta.
On June 28.
8,800 in the accounts.
5,965 5 9 in addition to Rs.
On January 28, 1947, the appellant wrote to the respondent alleging that the respondent had accepted the demand draft at its own risk and responsibility and was bound to give credit to the appellant for the sum of Rs.
As the appeilant refused to give any instructions, the respondent companytinued to hold the securities on account of the appellant.
On December 10, 1946, the respondent presented the cheque to the Nath Bank for payment.
the respondent accepted from the Bharati Central Bank cheques on Nath Bank on their own responsibility instead of insisting upon cash.
When the demand draft was presented to the Calcutta Branch of the Bharati Central Bank they requested by letter dated December 16, 1946 to present it to the Shillong Branch.
2,000 by way of interest.
By order dated May 24.
8,200 and another for Rs.
On the same day, the respondent wrote to the Bharati Central Bank demanding cash payment of the two cheques drawn on them and dated December 9, 1946.
When the respondent found that the drawer Bank instead of paying cash offered to pay by a cheque, the respondent acting in good faith in the interests of the appellant, accepted the cheque on its own responsibility.
The dealings between the appellant and the respondent companytinued, and the last entry in the companybined overdraft and deposit account is dated December 29, 1950.
Deka J., who heard the application framed four issues one of which related to limitation and the fourth was as follows Issue No.
1953, the respondent was ordered to be wound up.
An appeal was preferred by the appellant under the Letters Patent and that having been dismissed he has companye up before this companyrt by special leave.
8,800?
On the same day, the respondent credited the appellants account with the amount of the cheques before the cheques were cleared.
The appellant resisted the claim.
300 as companyts and 6 per cent p.a.
Then, according to Dutta.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 22, 1958, of the Assam High Court in Misc.
Beyond doubt, on December 9.
Thereafter, the witness proceeds, the respondent companynected the appellant for instructions.
4, whether the plaintiff bank is bound to give credit to the defendant for a sum of Rs.
On being informed of the dishonour of the cheque on Nath Bank, the appellant adopted and ratified the respondents acceptance of the cheque.
The respondent presented the draft to the Bharati Central Bank, Calcutta for payment, but instead of making payment, the Bharati Central Bank wrote on December 16, 1946 requesting the respondent to obtain payment from its Shillong Branch.
On February 26, 1953, a petition was presented in the Assam High Court for the winding up of the respondent.
the fact that the appellants account was credited with the amount of the two cheques does number show that the respondent ceased to be an agent for companylection of the cheques.
It is companytended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent having accepted the demand draft on their own responsibility and having sought to be treated as preferential creditors of the Bharat, Central Bank and having in fact been so treated cannot number turn round and say that the appellants cheques were number honoured and that, therefore, they are entitled to claim the sum of Rs.5,965 5 9 and interest from him.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of the witness called on behalf of the respondent, it was number the usual practice of the banks at Shilling to companylect cash in all cases in respect of cheques entrusted for companylection.
Dutta has, in his evidence, stated that numberformal numbere in writing was sent to the appellant by the respondents about the dishonouring of the cheque by the Nath Bank.
The two issues, which are number material, are Is the suit barred by limitation, and Whether the respondent is bound to give credit to the appellant for the sum of Rs.
The Nath Bank again returned the cheque with the remark full companyer number received, and the respondent thereupon debited the appellant with the sum of Rs.
The respondent orally companymunicated this advice to the appellant.
8,800 dated December 13, 1946 drawn by its Shillong Branch on its Calcutta Head Office towards payment of the two cheques.
8,800 drawn by the Bharati Central Bank on the Nath Bank, Shillong in favour of the respondent.
Therefore, the respondents would number have acted in the way they did had they regarded themselves as merely agents of the appellant for companylecting his cheques.
Indeed, having claimed, as against the Bharati Central Bank to be treated as preferential creditors of that Bank to the rune of Rs.
In the circumstances, it is number open to the appellant number to say that the respondent accepted the cheque on the Nath Bank or the draft of the Bharati Central Bank on the respondents own account and number as agent of the appellant.
It is difficult to see how they can hold the appellant, whose account with the Bharati Central Bank has been debited by that Bank to the extent of Rs.
It does number appear that the credit entry in the accounts was companytemporaneously companymunicated to the appellant.
600 and Rs.
It would appear that in the proceedings for reconstructing the Bharati Central Bank the respondent asked to be treated as preferential creditors in respect of the amount for which the draft had been made out and have been so treated.
8,800 was number received by the respondent in cash they must be deemed to have received the sum either by reason of the fact that they obtained from the Bharati Central Bank a cheque for Rs.
It is the case of the respondent Bank that the appellant had a mutual open and current account with the Bank.
In the meanwhile the Bharati Central Bank had applied for moratorium and this demand draft was number cashed.
A learned single Judge of the Assam High Court answered both the issues in the negative, and decreed the claim.
On December 9, 1946 the respondent credited two cheques to the appellants account one for Rs.
and on that footing, asked the respondent to represent the cheque.
interest on the decretal amount till realisation.
on the advice of the appellant they presented the draft to the Shillong Branch of the Bharati Central Bank.
He further allowed Rs.
They then presented the cheque to the Nath Bank on December 10, 1946.
8,200 and Rs.
This would further strengthen the companyclusion that the respondents were acting for themselves at every stage after the cheques for Rs.
The respondent then sent the cheques to the Bharati Central Bank, Shillong for companylection.
Under instructions from the appellant, the respondent accepted from the Bharati Central Bank a demand draft for Rs.
The Nath Bank returned the cheque with a numbere full companyer number received.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Instead of paying cash, the Bharati Central Bank sent to the respondent a cheque dated December 9, 1946 for Rs.
892 of 1963.
The respondent duly presented the cheques on the Bharati Central Bank for payment.
This the respondent did, as admitted by Dutta, without companysulting the appellant.
are against the Bharati Central Bank and number the appellant.
Nor does the appellant prove any arrangement that the appellant was entitled to draw against the amount of the cheques before they were cleared.
Instead of paying the cheques in cash, the Bharati Central Bank sent its own cheque on the Nath Bank.
Instead of obtaining cash from the Bharati Central Bank the respondent obtained and accepted from that Bank a cheque on the Nath Bank Limited.
The only oral evidence tendered was that of Narendra Nath Dutta, Assistant of the respondent Bank.
It is upon that basis that they have met the appellants companytention that the suit was barred by time.
8,800 on the Nath Bank or by the acceptance by them of a demand draft drawn by the Bharati Central Bank, Shilling.
8,800, particularly on their own showing what was owing to them from the appellant was something less than Rs.
600 and sent them for companylection to the Bharati Central Bank Ltd., Shillong Branch upon which they were drawn.
An appeal preferred to a Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed.
Bachawat, J. The respondcnt is a banking companypany number in liquidation.
on their Calcutta Branch.
39 of 1955.
The Nath Bank returned the cheque with the remark full companyer number received.
First No.
According to the witness the Bank referred the matter to the appellant and with his specific instruction the cheque was presented the next day to the Nath Bank, when also it was returned.
The cheques companyld have been drawn by the appellant either in his own favour or in favour of the bank.
6,000 they cannot number be heard to say that they merely acted as the appellants agents.
after a demand draft was issued to them by the Bharati Central Bank the respondents informed the appellant.
The respondent also companytacted the appellant.
1946 the respondent received the two cheques for companylection in the usual way as agent of the appellant and number with the intention of acquiring title to them.
Subsequently, the appellant instructed the respondent to accept a demand draft drawn by the Bharati Central Bank on the head office in lieu of its cheque on the Nath Bank, and approved of all steps taken by the respondent in the matter of companylection of the draft.
though it is true that the sum of Rs.
5,965 8 9 and interest against the appellant.
But on December 11, 1946, before the appellant drew upon this amount and as soon as the cheque on Nath Bank received in companyrse of companylection of the two cheques was dishonored, the respondent debited the appellants account with the like amount.
Nor did they inform him of having debited his account with Rs.
Instead of disowning the acts of the respondent in respect of the companylection of the cheques on the Bharati Central Bank, the appellant ratified them.
8,800.
8,800 against the appellant in his account with them.
This would show that the respondent accepted the position that they were acting in this matter number as the appellants agents but as payee.
Whichever be the position the fact remains that these two cheques were credited by him in his account with the respondent.
On January 11, 1947, the respondent wrote to the appellant stating that it was holding the demand draft as also the cheque on the Nath Bank and would be glad to receive further instructions in the matter for necessary action.
The respondent orally informed the appellant of the number payment of the cheque on the Nath Bank, and on December II, 1946 under oral instructions from the appellant, represented the cheque to Nath Bank for payment.
On several dates thereafter, the respondent presented the draft to the Bharati Central Bank for payment, but the draft was number paid.
But after that draft was dishonoured on presentation numberinformation whatsoever was given to the appellant.
In the circumstances.
K. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
was delivered by BACHAWAT, J. MUDHOLKAR, J. delivered a separate Opinion.
Dutta has further admitted that the respondent Bank obtained the cheque on their own responsibility.
The appellant had a companybined overdraft and deposit account with the Shillong branch of the respondent.
On receipt of the cheques, the respondent credited the appellant with the sum of Rs.
N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
The Judgment of RAGHUBAR DAYAL, R.S. BACHAWAT and V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Upon a companysideration of the evidence of Dutta and the documents placed on record Deka J. found against the appellant on these issues and passed a decree in favour of the Bank for Rs.
8.200 were credited in his account with them by the appellant.
The respondent accepted this cheque on its own responsibility without companysulting the appellant.
The appellant number appeals to this Court by special leave.
On December 9, 1946, the appellant gave the respondent for companylection two cheques for Rs.
8,800 in the accounts.
On December 13, 1946 they accepted a demand draft from the Bharati Central Bank for an identical amount which they sent to their Calcutta Branch for companylection.
600 respectively drawn on the Bharati Central Bank, Shillong.
