The attempt to amend the plaint did number succeed right upto this Court.154, Juhu Tara Road, Bombay 400049, which is the address of one Sunlight Firm, an associate of Sanchita Investments.
The acceptor, Lgee Enterprise, is also a number existing firm and has numberoffice at Plot No.
On the basis of the pleadings, the parties went to trial and the trial companyrt by judgment and order dated December 12, 1990, decreed the suit.
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by Punjab National Bank respondent number 1 before this Court , set aside the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1990, passed by a learned single judge of the High Court in Suit No.
780/1983 filed by the appellant plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The companyacceptance of the bill of exchange shown to have been made by A.B. Das was fraudulent and number binding on the Bank.
It was also stated in the written statement that the Metropolitan Construction was a number existent firm and never had any place of business at A 18 Kings Acres Plot No.
In the written statement it was stated on behalf of PNB that the bill of exchange was never accepted by it that A.B. Das, who was the Branch Manager of PNBs Zakaria Street Branch, Calcutta and who was shown to have accepted the bill of exchange was number authorized to accept any bill of exchange on behalf of the Bank.
The bill of exchange was presented for payment, but respondent number 1 refused to make payment, thereby dishonoring the bill.
The bill of exchange was drawn by two persons namely, Raghunath Dutta and Amit Dutta respondent number.
Here it needs to be stated that after the filing of the written statement of the respondent Bank the appellant plaintiff sought to amend the plaint and to describe the respondent Bank as the companyacceptor of the bill of exchange which, in the plaint, as numbered above, was described as the acceptor of the bill.
The companytest was, therefore, directly with PNB which was described in the plaint as the acceptor of the bill.
1 crore only.
The allegation of fraud, directly against Britannia, was made in sub paragraph h of paragraph 11 of the written statement which is set out below The said purported Bill of Exchange was number drawn on Punjab National Bank, this defendant and the said Mr. A.B. Das fraudulently in companylusion and companyspiracy with the plaintiff and or its Authorized Officer and or officers purportedly put a remark thereon as Co accepted.
3 4 in the suit as partners of the firm, respondent number 2 defendant number 2 in the suit .
PNB respondent number1 companypletely denied the case of the appellant plaintiff made out in the plaint and was granted leave to defend the suit in terms of rule 3 5 of Order XXXVII.
The appellant plaintiff filed the suit, being Suit No.
The acceptor of the bill of exchange is M s Lgee Enterprise which was number impleaded in the suit on the facile plea that, based in Mumbai, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
After receiving the written statement filed by the respondent Bank, the appellant plaintiff wanted to introduce the case of companyacceptance by the Bank.
The bill of exchange was accepted by M s Lgee Enterprises number made a party to the suit and was further shown to be accepted by Punjab National Bank respondent number 1 .
3 4 respectively as partners in the firm Metropolitan Construction respondent number 2 .
From the averments made in the plaint it is clear that the bill of exchange is drawn by respondent number.
The amendment petition was rejected by the trial companyrt and the order rejecting the amendment petition was upheld right upto this Court.
75, Saraswati Road, Santacruz West at Bombay 400054 or at 29, Creek Lane, Calcutta 700014 the addresses given in the bill of exchange .
It was then shown to be endorsed by respondent number 2 in favour of the appellant plaintiff and was delivered to it, who, thus, claims to have become the endorsee and the holder of the bill of exchange in question.
In this case, admittedly the bill was number presented to M s Lgee Enterprise, the named acceptor in the bill and as a companysequence other parties thereto were totally absolved of their liability.
2, 3 4 and they never companytested the suit at any stage.
Admittedly, suit summons were number served on defendant number.
The claim of the appellant plaintiff is based on a purported bill of exchange dated February 15, 1983 for a sum of Rs.
Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt, the respondent Bank preferred an intra court appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench, as numbered above, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the single judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
In any event, the companyacceptance of the bill of exchange by A.B. Das in Bombay was number in discharge of his official duty as Branch Manager of a branch in Calcutta.
780/1983, for recovery of the amount of the bill of exchange along with statutory interest.
3 4 defendant number.
It was also stated in paragraph 10 f of the written statement that B. Das was arrested by the West Bengal Bureau of Investigation relating to his involvement in companynection with M s Sanchita Investment and then on November 8, 1983, A.B. Das was again arrested by C.B.I. and various investigations were pending against A.B. Das.
The telephone number given in the said purported bill was in the name of M s Jayadas and Co., whose proprietress is Mrs. Jayashree Das, the wife of A.B. Dass brother.
The purported remark companyaccepted was put on the said Bill of Exchange in companylusion and companyspiracy with the plaintiff and or its duly authorized officers and is illegal, invalid and number binding on this defendant.
The Division Bench further found that by allegedly giving the guarantee for payment under the guise of companyacceptance of the bill, A.B. Das acted in excess of his authority and the so called companyacceptance endorsed by him companyld number and did number bind the respondent Bank.
Aftab Alam,J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 3, 2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.114/1991.
There was numberacceptances of the said purported bill by this defendant.
