JOGENDRA NATH CHAKRAVARTI Vs. NEW BENGAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is ahe plaintiff against the defendant Bank for failure to honour 4 cheques drawn by him upon the Bank although his account was in funds. The defendant Bank repudiates liability alleging an arrangement between the Bank and the plaintiff amongst other creditors, that they would not draw cheques other than of an urgent and personal nature during the period of financial stress which the Bank was experiencing. The cheques dishonoured are alleged to have been drawn in breach of this agreement. The plaintiff assesses his damages in his plaint at Rs. 8000. The only particulars he gives are " Rs. 5000 general damages, and Rs. 3000 special damages." It appears now that the Rs. 3000 special damages are claimed owing to the loss of gratuity which the plaintiff was expecting from one Mrs. Minnie Lall, who is the widow of a well known zamindar in Bihar, and who was formerly his employer. The questions for decision resolve themselves into two : (1) was there the agreement alleged by the Bank? If so, the Bank are absolved from liability. (2) The second point for decision is, supposing that agreement is not established, is the plaintiff entitled to damages? The issues framed are as follows: (1) Was there any agreement as mentioned in, para. 2 of the written statement and in the particulars contained in the letter dated 4 January 1938 from J.M. Chodhury to S.N. Sen? (2) Did the plaintiff draw the three cheques, Nos. Co 74803, Go 08244, and Co 74804 contrary to such arrangement? (3) Was the cheque 74802 dated 21 July 1937 and drawn in favour of Mr. Hayes ever presented for payment to the defendant Bank? (4) Has the plaintiff suffered any loss or damage? (5) Is the plaintiff entitled to the damages given in the particulars; are they remote or excessive? (6) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

(2.) I will deal first with the agreement which has been set up by the defendant Bank. (His Lordship then discussed the evidence and proceeded.) I hold that there was no agreement on 15 or 16 July such as has been alleged by the defendant bank, and that there was no agreement as alleged at any time when these cheques were dishonoured. The first two issues must therefore be answered in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) With regard to the third issue, this refers to a cheque for Rs. 135 which was drawn in favour of a Mr. Hayes, the manager of the Grand Hotel at Ranchi. The Grand Hotel at Ranchi is the property of Mrs. Minnie Lall. ff he plaintiff was Mrs. Minnie Lall's agent and constituted attorney, and he had received from Mrs. Lall before she went to England about Rs. 1000 or Rs. 1200 to be used in the interests of Mrs. Lall, and apparently for the most part for repairing the Grand Hotel at Ranchi. The cheque for Rs. 135 was for the purpose of paying the taxes to the Ranchi Municipality. Mr. Hayes has not been called, but the plaintiff has purported to give evidence as to various statements made to him by Mr. Hayes. These statements, of course, are not evidence. It appears that the cheque for Rs. 135 was sent to the Bank of India Ltd. for collection and was returned with the statement "no means of collection." It is quite clear that this cheque was never presented to the bank and therefore was not dishonoured and no cause of action lies with regard to it. Issue 3 is answered in the negative.