STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ANANDA SHAMRAO MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal can be decided finally at this stage. By consent the appeal is admitted for following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) The factual background:-

(3.) Indeed, the answer to the respondent's predicament lied way back in March, 1991 or earlier to it in the alternative relief suggested in section 45-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower Appellate Court. rightly held that the respondent No. 1 also neglected his right to sue the drawer of the cheque within time as suggested by the provisions of section 45-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This clearly suggests that for the loss that the respondent No. 1 suffered, he too was responsible. The only lapse on the part of the appellant bank was that they did not intimate to the respondent No. 1 about the loss of cheque in transit. The appellant bank, within a month or so, should have realised that the cheque in question was lost in transit and should have immediately intimated this fact to the respondent No. 1, suggesting him to get a duplicate cheque. They waited till December, 1990 for giving proper response to the respondent No. 1. I think, this lapse on their part was comparatively less injurious than the loss of remedy against the drawer of the cheque.