INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. MAHAVEER METAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an appeal against the order dated the 21st of February, 1992 made by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in Original Petition No. 117 of 1991. The State Commission held that the appellant Bank had unjustifiably dishonored the cheques issued by the firm which must have certainly affected the firm's reputation. In consequence it allowed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation by way of damages to the respondent complainant and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) On the basis of the records and the averments made before us at the hearing, the relevant facts are briefly noticed below:

(3.) The respondent complainant firm was originally a partnership consisting of 6 partners. It is stated in the order of the State Commission that this firm was reconstituted on 10th May, 1989 under a fresh deed of partnership, but the name and style of the firm is the same, as of the firm before reconstitution, i.e. M/s. Mahaveer Metal Industries, with three partners, Shri Champalal, Shri Bansilal and Shri Chunnilal. However, according to the appellant Bank, while opening the current account of the newly constituted partnership in 1989, in the partnership deed of 10th May, 1989 it was stated that Shri Pukhraj, one of the partners in the firm prior to reconstitution had expressed his desire to retire in 1985 w.e.f. 13th November, 1985, but he did not sign the retirement deed. Likewise, two other partners, viz. Shri Shanti Lal and Shri Prasad Mal had also decided to retire from the partnership w.e.f. 1.4.1989, but it is not clear whether they had actually retired by signing the retirement deed. However, this question whether they had retired or not, is not relevant as would be evident from the facts hereafter.