LAWS(MAD)-1954-1-26

K M ABBU CHETTIAR Vs. HYDERABAD STATE BANK

Decided On January 29, 1954
K.M.ABBU CHETTIAR Appellant
V/S
HYDERABAD STATE BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is for ordering the defendant, the Hyderabad State Bank Ltd., forthwith to release and deliver over to the plaintiff Abbu Chettiar the goods, viz., 4050 bags of gingelly oil seeds described in the plaint schedule and for damages of Rs. 1800 and for an interim order directing the defendant to deliver over to the plaintiff the said goods and for costs.

(2.) The case for the plaintiff is as follows: He is a merchant carrying on business in gingelly, caster and groundnut oil as manufacturer and wholesale dealer and distributor with head office at No. 81, Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Madras, and branches all over the City. The defendant, the Hyderabad State Bank Ltd., with its Head Office in Hyderabad State, has its branch office at Linghi Chetty Street, George Town, Madras. The plaintiff had dealings with the defendant bank on a produce loan account. On the forenoon of 23-12-1952 the plaintiff sent his clerk, Rukmangadan, P. W. 4, with a cash of Rs. 2000 to pay it into the bank and settle the produce loan account in which according to the plaintiff the balance due was Rs. 1255-14-6 plus interest and get a release of the goods and for which purpose take the key of the godown from the bank. On this Rukmangadan going to the bank and tendering the amount due as per instructions of Abbu Chettiar and asking back for the key he was informed by the bank clerk, Ramanathan, D. W. 1, that what was due was Rs. 16,000, apart from interest and not the sum tendered. Rukmangadan says that he was taken aback and asked for information, and found out that a bearer cheque MsIC No. 007215 for Rs. 15,000, drawn on self and signed by Abbu Chettiar has been cashed that morning at about 10-10 A.M. by a person describing himself as T. Annamalai Chettiar, 81 Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Madras, & who has endorsed his name & address on the back of the cheque. Therefore this Rukmangadan phoned up his master who was then performing annual ceremony in his house. Abbu Chettiar accompanied by others ran to the Bank, verified this information, looked into the cheque mentioned above and protested that his signature had been forged and that he had not sent any Annamalai Chettiar to cash any cheque. This matter was taken promptly to the notice of the North Beach Police Station by the Bank through the accountant Bijoor and by Abbu Chettiar. This Abbu Chettiar gave a complaint by 11-30 A.M. and the North Beach Police Station registered it as Crime No. 794/52 under Sections 380 and 467, I. P. C., in which this Abbu Chettiar has stated that his signature had been forged and a sum of Rs. 15,000 had been drawn from the Hyderabad State Bank without his knowledge and that on checking the cheque book it was found that five leaves viz., Nos. 007212 to 007216 were missing. The Sub-inspector of Police, Mr. Abdul Wahab examined as P. W. 2 investigated this complaint and came to the conclusion that the work must be an inside job viz., of someone in the household of Abbu Chettiar or closely connected with one such person having access to the cheque book normally kept inside an iron safe outside business hours and in the office room during the business hours and that the crime was undetect-able. Thereafter this Abbu Chettiar issued a notice to the bank asking them to make good the sum of Rs. 15,000 and on the refusal of the Bank has filed this suit for the reliefs mentioned above, because the Bank has refused to release the goods on the foot that they properly honoured the cheque of Abbu Chettiar.

(3.) The case for the Bank is three-fold, viz., that the signature of the plaintiff as drawer of the bearer cheque in question Is not a forgery and that during the period of the plaintiff's account with the defendant bank the bank has come to know that the plaintiff used to sign blank cheques and leave the same with his office for the purpose of business emergencies and that when the plaintiff turned up at the Bank immediately after receiving the phone message and examined the cheque in question did not deny then and there and state that the signatures in the cheque were not his and far from charging the defendant bank with any negligence was bitterly complaining that some one in his employ in collusion with his enemies had taken advantage of the situation and circumstances and had betrayed the confidence that he had reposed in him; secondly, that the plaintiff by his own conduct or negligence is said to have occasioned or contributed to the loss; the plaintiff was invariably drawing cheques payable to bearer and for very large sums and was getting them cashed through various persons about a dozen of them, both strangers and relatives, in his employ from time to time even after he reported about the two missing cheque leaves and warnings were given by the defendant bank of the probable serious consequences in case of repetitions of theft. He has been culpably and criminally negligent and guilty of breach of duty which he owed to the defendant Bank to take the necessary precautions to prevent a repetition of the same. Thirdly, the forgery in this case, if it is a forgery, was so cleverely executed that the Banker was not able by any amount of care to ascertain whether or not his customer's signature was a forgery.