BANK OF BOMBAY Vs. RAGHUNATHJI TARACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two suits by the Bank of Bombay on two promissory notes or hundis made on the 13 November 1907 and payable in 60 or 63 days. The defendants are: (1) the firm of Raghunathji Tarachand, in the name of which the notes are made and by whom they were dishonoured ; (2) the heirs of the person by name Hirabhai Ghelabhai to whom or to whose order the notes were payable, who endorsed them to the Bank of Bombay and obtained money on them from the Bank. The latter defendants do not appear. The first defendant obtained leave to defend and pleaded in substance that though the notes were signed by Narotamdas the son of Gordhan, yet that he had no authority to sign with the name of the firm, and did not sign them for the firm ; that the notes were signed by Narotam only when entreated by Hirabhai; that he received no consideration and did not know he was incurring any liability; that they were obtained by fraud and that the Bank through their agent had notice of the fraud.

(2.) It appeared on the evidence that there is a firm of the name of Raghunathji Tarachand which belongs to a Hindu family of which Narotamdas is an adult member and that he signed the two notes with the name of the firm. The issues framed were as set out below. 1. Whether the 1 defendant firm ever signed the promissory note annexed to the plaint. 2. Whether the 1 defendant firm is not a joint family firm carrying on business in Bombay.

(3.) Whether Narotamdas Gordhandas was at the time he signed the promissory note manager of the said joint family firm.