RAMLAL BHADANI Vs. DASS BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a commercial suit. Although argued on both sides by counsel comparatively junior in the profession it was, if I may say so, as ably prepared and presented as any ease that I have heard in this Court, and that is saying a good deal. Although the plaintiff will succeed nothing more, in my opinion, could have been done by Mr. P.B. Mookerjee to whose arguments on behalf of the defendants I shall refer and the same must be said of Mr.Bachawat and Mr.Sethia who appeared for the plaintiffs.

(2.) The short facts are as follows: On 12 May 1941, one Mohanlal Desai, the bent of whose particular genius will appear from the circumstances of the case, opened an account with the defendants, the Dass Bank, with Rs.500. This account is exhibited and in the light of what subsequently transpired tells its own little story. On 9 June 1941, this account stood to credit at Rs.5 and on the same day the credit amounted to Rs.2605. On 10 June 1941, Rs. 2500 had been withdrawn and the amount standing to Mr.Desai's credit was then Rs.105. Mr.Desai has disappeared. The increase of Rs. 2600 on 9 June 1941 is thus explained. The plaintiffs carry on business under the name of Ramlal Jugalkishpre at Gaya. Ramlal Jugalkishore on that date bought a draft payable to themselves in the name of their Calcutta business Jitenram Ramlal. This draft No. AB 91,662 was bought by Ramlal Jugalkishore from the Imperial Bank at Gaya and was drawn on Imperial Bank, Burrabazar branch. It was posted and sent by ordinary unregistered post on 11 June 1941. Jitenram Ramlal notified the Imperial Bank that the draft has not come to hand. On 27 August 1941, this suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the bank for damages for conversion and alternatively for money had and received. It is admitted that the endorsement on the draft in favour of the Dass Bank is a forgery by our ingenious gentleman Mr. Mohanlal Desai who evidently obtained it in the post. The issues raised by Mr. N.C. Chatterjee, if I remember rightly, were as follows: (1) Did the defendant bank act wrongfully (a) in taking delivery of the draft; (b) presenting the same to the Imperial Bank; (e) in obtaining payment from the Imperial Bank; (d) in making payment to defendant 2, the said ingenious gentleman. (I had forgotten to mention that he was a defendant. Of course he has not entered appearance.) (2) Do the facts alleged in the plaint constitute conversion by the defendant ? (3) Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence asalleged in para. 5 of the written statement and, if so, is the claim barred by estoppel ? The negligencealleged by the defendant bank is the sending of the draft by ordinary unregistered post. (4) Did the defendant bank reoeive payment of the draft on behalf of its customer in good faith and without negligence ? (5) Damages.

(3.) I will eliminate issue (4) in view of the fact that (although no negligence on the part of the defendant is alleged) such negligence would only be material in the event of the bank relying on Section 131, Negotiable Instruments Act, or upon an analogous principle. Section 131 only applies in case of crossed cheques, and Mr.Mookerjee was unable to discover any analogous principle recognised by the law.