A F FERGUSON CO Vs. LALIT MOHAN GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff, Mr. Lalit Mohan Ghosh, is an advocate ordinarily practising at Bhagalpur. Defendant No. 2 is Allianz Und Stuttgarter Life Insurance Bank Ltd., a German Firm, having had its branch office in India at Delhi. On the 17th July, 1930, the plaintiff got his life insured with defendant No. 2 under Policy No. H-2090 for a sum of Rs. 30,000, the annual premium payable being Rs. 2,212/8/- for 21 years or until his death if it occurred before that period. On the 18th of June, 1935, the plaintiff took a loan of Rs. 3,700/- from defendant No. 2 on the security of his insurance policy and on the 20th of June, 1938, he took another loan of Rs. 2,315 from defendant No. 2 on the same security. On the 26th of June, 1939, he again took a loan of Rs. 519 from defendant No. 2 on the security of his insurance policy. Till the 31st of August, 1939, the plaintiff paid tall premiums, and the total sum paid by that date comes to Rs. 21,571/14/-. On the 3rd of September, 1939, war broke out between the British and the Germans, and the case of the plaintiff is that on the declaration of the said war the contract of insurance became frustrated. On the declaration of war, defendant No. 2 being an enemy firm, the Government of India closed its office. THE Government of India, however, purporting to act under rule 113A of the Defence of India Rules, issued a notification, exhibit E(I), dated the 14th of December, 1939, authorising Messrs. A.F. Ferguson and Company, Chartered Accountants of Bombay (Defendant No. 1) to carry on the business of this firm subject to the conditions that defendant No. 1

(3.) IN -- ' Banwari Gope v. Emperor', AIR 1943 Fat 18 (FB) (A), a Full Bench decision of this Court, Fazl Ali J. (as he then was), who delivered the judgment, referring to the discussions made in numerous cases, stated briefly some of the principles which may be taken to have been well settled in those cases, as follows: