DENA BANK Vs. GLADSTONE LYALL AND CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a bank suitthe tribe whereof is ever increasing for recovery of amount due under bills of exchange accepted by the defendants and more than once assured and promised to be paid in reply to demand accordingly before the suit.

(2.) RELEVANT facts, abbreviated to the minimum, are as follows: One Havana Productsa partnership firmentered into a sales agreement with the defendants for marketing the firm's products. By their letter of February 7, 1983 the firm requested the plaintiffs to grant them bill discounting facility qua hundies they would be drawing on the defendants The defendants themselves also wrote letter dated February 28. 1983 to the plaintiffs that they would be buying the firm's products on 90 days bills of exchange which will be accepted by the defendants and will be signed for them by one P. N. Kanth whose duly attested signature was affixed on the said letter itself. The plaintiffs granted bill discounting facility accordingly. Pursuant thereto, the said firm drew 16 hundies upon the defendants as drawees payable 90 days from the respective dates. All these hundies were accepted by the defendants and the plaintiffs accordingly made available to the firm the amounts in connection therewith. However, on maturity, from time to time, all the said hundies were, on presentation, dishonoured by the defendants by non -payment. Subsequent correspondence and demands were to no avail. Hence this suit and the summons for judgment.

(3.) COMING to the ruling in Bank case, one finds that the 16 hundi papers subsequent to the first sheet of the bill were altogether blank at the time the bill was made. One further finds that it was only some days later when the bill was actually entered in the plaintiffs' register that these 16 succeeding hundi papers were stamped with the rubber stamp of the plaintiffs branch with the words 'L.B.D. 2/22' within it. In Jain's case, the defence pertained to 'inadequate and improperly attached stamps on the documents' giving rise to an issue whether there was 'proper or improper stamping'. In the context of such facts and circumstances, it would follow that the bill not duly stamped would, by virtue of Section 15 of the Stamp Act 'be deemed to be unstamped' and, therefore, under 8. 35 of the said Act, inadmissible in evidence.