The companypany then moved the High Court for a certificate, and on a certificate being granted it has companye to this Court and on its behalf Mr. Andley has urged that in companying to the companyclusion that the companypanys claim was unsustainable the Appeal Court has misjudgedthe effect of the provisions of s. 89 of the Indian Companies Act in relation to the companyduct of the bank in the present case.
for the respondents.
N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and ,P. L. Vohra, for the appellants, A V. Viswanatha Sastri and Tarachand Brij mohan Lal.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 5,1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.,
28,882 13 0.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
January 31.
The appellant, the Oriol Industries, Ltd. hereafter called the companypany was incorporated on May 15, 1945, and it appointed as its managing agents M s. Poddar Chack Co. Soon after its incorporation the companypany passed a resolution on May 21, 1945, whereby it decided to open an account with the respondent, the Bombay Mercantile Bank, Ltd. hereafter called the bank and in accordance with the said resolution an account was opened with it on May 28, 1945.
Twenty eight cheques were drawn on this account aggregating the total amount of Rs.
These cheques were drawn by K. Poddar and M. J. Chacko in pursuance of the authority companyferred on them by the companypany.
221 of 1956.
J. This appeal which has companye to this Court with a certificate issued by the Bombay High Court raises for our decision a short and interesting question about the scope and effect of the provisions companytained in s. 89 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, in relation to the law of banking.
128/X of 1954.
28,882 13 0 during the period between May 28, 1945 and July, 31, 1945.
The case for the companypany as set out in the plaint was that the payment of the said amount had been made by the bank wrongfully and negligently and the amount drawn under the said cheques had been wrongfully debited to the companypany in its account kept by the bank.
