KESHAVLAL TRIKAMLAL Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question arises in this revision, namely, whether a customer can sue his banker for accounts? The question arises in the following circumstances:- The applicant herein is doing the business of selling cloth in Ahmedabad and for purposes of his business had certain banking facilities with the opponent-Bank herein. There were two types of accounts with the opponent-Bank namely; (i) Key Cash Credit Account and (ii) Bills Purchase Account. For the Purposes of having facility in the first account, the applicant used to hand over the key of his godown where his bales of cloth were stored to the opponent-Bank with a complete control over the same. The opponent-Bank used to maintain accounts of the, bales received and, replaced in the said godown from time to time and on the basis valuation of the stock of, the bales in custody of the Bank, advances were made to the extent of 70 per cent of the price of the goods subject to Maximum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 The applicant used to sell his goods to upcountry merchants. But before the delivery of the goods was effected to the merchants concerned, the applicant used to draw the bills on the up country constituent, which the Opponent-Bank used to purchase by advancing amounts to the applicant and which amounts were adjusted finally in that Key Cash Credit Account when all the bales of cloth were delivered to the merchants concerned by the opponent-Bank against the price thereof, which the Bank used to credit in the plaintiff's account in the Bank. It appears that some insolvency proceedings were initiated against the applicant in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in December 1961. It is the case of the applicant that from that time, the relationship between the applicant and the Bank came to an end. It is his further case that the opponent-Bank informed him when he inquired in about December 1961 that the value of the goods in favour of the Bank was to the tune of Rs. 1,45,000.00. The grievance of the applicant in the suit is that the Bank refused to give any details about the plaintiff's accounts in the Bank, though the opponent-Bank was in possession of the details about the bills purchased, which were either honoured by the upcountry constituents of were dishonoured as a result of which the opponent-Bank was forced to sell the goods. It is the case of the applicant that the opponent-Bank was accountable to him for these sale transactions, which, according to the applicant, were not effected at the market price. The applicant is not in a position to ascertain the extract amount due to him from the defendant-Bank s some of the creditors had taken away all his books of accounts at the time of the aforesaid insolvency proceedings. It is his further grievance that the opponent-Bank has delivered the goods pledged with the Bank of unauthorised persons, and in some cases to the employees of the Bank and the opponent-Bank has not accounted for these goods in its periodical statement of accounts or falsely accounted for as delivered to the applicant. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of an aggregate amount of Rs. 60,000/comprising broadly of three items, namely- Rs. 21,000-00

(2.) In the written statement filed by the opponent-Bank, there was no plea as to the non-maintainability of the suit for accounts. However, it appears that the plaintiff sought the amendment and furnished better particulars of these three broad items claimed as damages, after taking inspection of the accounts, with the opponent-Bank. The amendment was ultimately permitted to be made for purposes for furnishing better particulars of these three items:- Pursuant to this amendment made, the opponent-Bank filed its written statement to the amended plaint and raised a plea amongst others that the suit for accounts was not maintainable. The trial court therefore, failed the question by Issue No. 14, whether the suit for accounts was not maintainable. After allowing the parties to lead evidence on this preliminary issue and after hearing the advocates of the parties, the learned city civil Judge came to the conclusion that such a suit was not maintainable, as the suit was not so worded nor valued as to be a suit for accounts. The learned city civil Judge also held that having regard to the relationship between the applicant and the opponent-Bank which is that of a creditor and a debtor notwithstanding the fact that there was a Key Cash Credit Account, such a suit was not competent. The learned city civil Judge was further of the opinion that having regard to the evidence led in the connection with this preliminary issue, the applicant as well as his son had an opportunity and had in fact inspected the accounts books for a week or so and, therefore, the applicant was in a position to file a suit for an ascertained amount. Having not done so, the suit for accounts was not competent.

(3.) . Being aggrieved with this order of the learned city civil Judge, the applicant has come in revision before this court.