MANIK RATAN GUIN Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by the defendants in two suits against whom the claim of the holder of two hundis in whose favour they had been endorsed by the payee of hundi, the Midnapur Branch of the Bank of Calcutta, for the amount due on the hundi with interest had been allowed.

(2.) In Appeal No. 136 of 1949 the appellants Manick Ratan Guin and Nakul Ratan Guin were the drawees, of the hundi, the drawer being Krishna Charan Guin. They were accepted by Manick Ratan and Nakul Ratan on the very date the hundi was drawn and it was transferred by the payee hank on 18-4-1947. In Appeal No. 137 of 1949 Manick Ratan is the drawer of the hundi while the other appellant Prosanta Kumar Sen Gupta is the drawee who accepted it on the same date. This also was transferred by the Bank on 24-5-1947. The transfer in both the cases was by wav of adjustment against dues of the transferees against the Bank on account of several deposits. Of the several defences taken, we are concerned with only a few now. The first of these is that the transfer was altogether void as it was against the order of the High Court in proceedings before the Original Side of the Court. The second defence is that in any case this amounted to fraudulent preference in favour of some of the debtors and so was invalid under Section 231, Companies Act. Thirdly, it was contended that there having been no presentation of the bills to the acceptors in accordance with the provisions of Section 64, Negotiable Instruments Act, the consequence of the provision in that section is that neither the drawer nor the acceptor is liable. Lastly, it was contended that no interest is payable as there was no presentation.

(3.) It has been contended before us on behalf of the appellant that this Court by its order dated 27-3-1947 directed the Bank of Calcutta not to pay off more than 60 per cent of the due of any creditor, whether by way of adjustment or otherwise. The relevant portion of the order is in these words: