P R S PILLAI Vs. MANUEL SATHYANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent sued the appellant on a promissory note for Rs. 2643-12-0 dated the 22nd September, 1953. The appellant repudiated personal liability on the ground that the amount of the promissory note represented the balance of remuneration due to the respondent from the Kalasagar Films Ltd. , a company of which the appellant was the manager, for having acted in a film "thiramala" produced by the company. The appellant's plea was repelled and the suit was decreed. The promissory note which is Ext. P 1 contained an unconditional undertaking by the appellant to pay the respondent, the sum of Rs. 2646-12-0 on demand; but no Indication whatever that he signed Ex. P 1 as manager of the company or that he did not intend thereby to Incur personal responsibility. This one feature is sufficient to put the appellant out of Court, on the strength of section 28 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. A plea of this kind came before the Privy Council and was repelled in Firm Sadasuk Janki Das v. Sir, Kishen pershad, AIR 1918 P. C. 146, in which their Lordships explained the policy of the law thus:

(2.) IN the present case, the appellant contended that the contract of employment of the respondent was with the company, and was entered into for the benefit of the latter and not for his own benefit and that therefore the promissory note was unsupported by consideration. The Judge has found believing the respondent that the contract was entered into by him at the instance of the appellant and at his request. There is no reason to think otherwise; if so, there was sufficient consideration for the appellant to execute Ext. P 1. For these reasons, the appeal falls and is dismissed with costs.