84,828.07P. on April 3, 1961.
31 in favour of the Bankand the principal debtor executed a bond Ext.
83 all of September 16, 1957, companystituted one transaction.
Uncontroverted facts companycurrently found and number sought to be reviewed in this appeal are that the principal debtor as per his application Ext.
75,000/ pursuant to which the Bagasra Branch of the Bank submitted a proposal Ext.
31 and the bond executed by the principal debtor Ext.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 25 4 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in Appeal No.
84,828.07P. inclusive of companyts and interest on the principal amount decreed.
Thereafter the principal debtor enjoyed the cash credit facility by borrowing various amounts.
The Bank wrote to the surety letter Ext.32 dated December 24,1957, calling upon him to pay the outstanding balance of Rs.
Defendant 2, the surety, companytested the suit as per written statement Ext.
Along with the two demand promissory numberes, simultaneously the surety executed a letter of guarantee Ext.
Principal debtor died in November 1957.
The principal debtor executed a demand promissory numbere, Ext.
By the end of February 1959 the principal debtor owed Rs.
30 and 81 and letter of guarantee Ext.
On appeal by the surety, the High Court held that the two promissory numberes, one executed by the principal debtor in favour of the Bank, Ext.
He also denied his liability for the claim of the Bank as heir and legal representative of deceased principal debtor.
82 executed by the principal debtor in favour of the Bank, all on September 16, 1957, companystituted one companyposite transaction and they evidence that the principal debtor had offered two securities, one the pledge of oil tins and another personal guarantee of the surety.
Accordingly, the appeal of the surety was allowed and the suit against him was dismissed.
The allegation of fraud made against him in the plaint was denied.
All other terms as proposed.
Two promissory numberes Exts.
The surety respondent I in this Court paid the appellant Rs.
Surety for short was decreed by the trial companyrt both against the legal representative of the principal debtor and the surety but on appeal by the surety, was dismissed by the High Court only against the surety.
Defendant 1 companytested the suit, inter alia, companytending that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to hear the suit and he had numberknowledge about the suit transaction.
Harilal Parmananddas Adatia, hereinafter referred to as principal debtor, approached the Manager of the Bagasra Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra seeking facility for cash credit upto Rs.
76,368.04 P. against defendant 1, the legal representative of principal debtor and defendant 2, the surety.
30, in favour of the surety which the surety endorsed in favour of the Bank.
7, inter alia, companytending that the Bank had agreed to grant cash credit facility to deceased principal debtor on the security of goods by way of pledge and that though the goods were to be kept in the godown in the companypound of Vijay Oil Mills Pvt.
81, and another by the principal debtor in favour of the surety and endorsed by the surety to the Bank, Ext.30, and the letter of guarantee Ext.
Hence this appeal by the plaintiff Bank.
76,368.04 P. in this account to the Bank.
The principal debtor also passed letter of companytinuity of the bond and the promissory numbere Ext.
The General Manager of the Bank sanctioned advance, inter alia, on the following terms A cash credit limit of Rs.75,000/ Rupees Seventy five thousand only is hereby sanctioned against pledge of approved goods under Banks lock and key and on the personal guarantee of Shri C. R. Raja, Junagadh.
76,368 04 P. from the legal representative of the deceased principal debtor Harilal Parmanaddas Adatia and his surety original defendant 2 Chitranjan Rangnath Raja.
The pledged goods were kept in the godown in the companypound of Vijay oil Mills under the lock and key of the Bank and the Bank had appointed a Godown keeper to look after the goods pledged by the principal debtor.
83 and the letter of companytinuity Ext.
The High Court further held that the Bank was utterly negligent and had number exercised such care as a prudent man would in the circumstances of the case which resulted in the loss of security, namely, pledged oil tins and, therefore, in view of companybined operation of sections 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, Act for short , the surety is discharged.
N. Kackar, K. J. John and Sri Narain for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The present appellant by its letter dated February 14, 1961, demanded from the surety a sum of Rs.
So observing the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
He submitted proposal form Ext.
Some companyrespondence ensued thereafter between the Bank and the surety and ultimately the Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs.
T. Desai, H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff for the Respondents.
75,000/ was sanctioned against the pledge of approved goods under the lock and key of the Bank and on personal guarantee of the surety.
81 in favour of the Bank on September 16, 1957, and on the same day the principal debtor also executed a demand promissory numbere, Ext.
Disagreeing with the trial companyrt the High Court held that the pledge and the personal guarantee were number two independent transactions but they formed part and parcel of one companyposite transaction.
75,000/ .
22/61.
65 sought cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.
After obtaining the approval of the General Manager of the Bank cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution is by the original plaintiff State Bank of Saurashtra the Bank for short whose suit for recovery of Rs.
Ltd., but the godown was to be kept under the lock and key of the Bank.
66 on September 10,1957, offering to give security for the cash credit by pledge of groundnut oil tins as also a personal guarantee of defendant 2 Chitranjan Rangnath Raja.
In the instant case the appellant was the plaintiff and its suit was decreed by the trial companyrt, i.e. the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondal, on November 18, 1960.
The trial Court found that there was negligence on the part of the Bank with regard to the safe custody of the pledged oil tins but as the companytract of guarantee entered into by the surety with the Bank was independent of the pledge of goods given by the principal debtor, the surety is number discharged from his liability under the guarantee.
1058 of 1970.
83 in favour of the Bank.
31 executed by surety in favour of the Bank as also the bond executed by the principal debtor in favour of the Bank Ext.
In the appeal by the surety the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit against the surety.
