CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RADHAKISNAN JAGDISHPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Chamber Summones are being disposed of with common Judgment as the same arise out of execution proceedings by way of warrant of attachment levied under the same application and under the same decree. Further, the applicant in the Chamber Summons No. 843 of 1991 is the son and applicant in Chamber Summons No. 844 of 1991 is his father who is defendant No. 6 in the suit against whom decree has already been passed.

(2.) TO appreciate the merits of both these applications, brief apprisal of the facts would be necessary.

(3.) THE plaintiff herein is a Bank and they have filed a suit against defendants for recovery of certain amount. As far as defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were concerned the claim related to the credit facilities granted to them and defendant No. 6 who has taken out second application was the carrier of the certain goods entrusted to him for delivery to the particular party to whom 6th defendant was to deliver goods on payment. However, the defendant No. 6 delivered the goods to the consignee without receiving payment which act of the defendant No. 6 according to the plaintiffs was fradulant. Therefore in the suit a separate claim was made against defendant No. 6 on that ground and the Court has decreed the said claim.