SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 195

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, R.S. BACHAWAT, K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Bharat Nidhi Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Takhatmal (dead) by his legal representatives and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 133 of 1965,
D/-7-8-1968.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. N. Anand, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocate for legal representatives of Respondent No. 1; Mr. B. C. Misra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. V. Goswami, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 2.

Advocates:
B.C.MISHRA, M.V.GOSWAMY, S.N.ANAND, S.S.SHUKLA

Headnote:(1) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - S. 130-equitable assignment irrevocable power of attorney executed in favour of the Bank by a contractor on receiving money for execution of the contract-bill for the payment of the contract endorsed in favour of the Bank- this amounts to equitable assignment -the amount cannot be attached by a creditor of the contractor.

       (2) Words & Phrase-equitable assignment-what is.

       A contractor needed funds for execution of certain military contracts. The bank advanced monies to the contractor after obtaining from him an irrevocable power of attorney authorising the bank to receive all monies due or to become due to the contractor in respect of pending or future contracts with the authorities. The bank was also authorised to sue for, recover and receive the moneys due in connection with the contracts with the approval of the contractor. The bills were endorsed by the contractor in favour of the bank. Before the amount was paid to the bank it was attached by the contractor's creditor in execution of a money decree obtained by him against the contractor The bank claimed that the power of attorney coupled with the endorsement amounted to an equitable assignment of the moneys in favour of the bank and the amount of the bills could not be attached by the creditor in execution of the decree against tile contractor.

       Held: The assignment created an interest in a specific fund in favour of the bank. Where a document does not amount to a transfer within section 130 it may apart from and independently of the section operate as an equitable assignment of the actionable claim. The amount due on the bills could not be attached in execution of the money decree against the contractor. 1926 AC 703 at p. 706, (1885) ILR 9 Bom. 311, C.A. No, 644 of 1965 decided on 25-4-1968, (1888) 13 AC 523 referred to. 1962 JLJ 957 reversed.

       [Para 6]

       (3) Words and Pharses-'Pay order' and assignment'-difference.

       A pay order is a revocable mandate. It gives the payee no interest in the fund. An assignment creates an interest in the fund and is not revocable. [Para 6]

Judgement

BACHAWAT, J.: M. R. Malhotra was working as a contractor to the military and other authorities. He needed funds for the execution of his contracts. The appellant Bank formerly known as the Bharat Bank Ltd., agreed to finance the contracts and to advance monies to Malhotra against his bills for supplies under the contract. For the purpose of carrying out this arrangement Malhotra executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the appellant on July 13, 1946. The power of attorney recited.

"Whereas we are working as contractors to the Government in its various departments and have entered into certain contracts and will in future enter into other contracts and whereas an agreement dated 13th July 1946 has been made between us and the Bharat Bank Ltd., in pursuance of which the attorneys have agreed to finance contracts and to advance us sums of money, against supply bills for payments to be received by us under the contracts issued by the Government in various departments on conditions mentioned therein; and whereas we, for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the said agreement more effectively and to secure the interest of the attorneys are desirous of appointing the Bharat Bank Ltd., as our lawful attorneys in all matters relating to the receipt of all payments under the contracts made or to be made hereafter."

The document appointed the appellant to be the attorneys of Malhotra.

"to present and submit supply bills regarding our contracts to the proper officers and/or authority of the Government Departments concerned; to obtain cheques for sums payable to us under the contracts directly in their own name or in our names in payment of such bills or other amount and to cash and to receive the amount thereof and appropriate such receipts towards and in repayment of the advances made or to be made hereafter and all other monies due from us to the attorneys in any account whatsoever." The appellant was also authorised to sue for, recover and receive the monies due in connection with the contracts with the approval of Malhotra, to conduct and defend proceedings in consultation with him and to take steps in his name and on his behalf. Malhotra promised and declared that "all powers hereby granted are and shall be irrevocable as long as any claims of the attorneys against us whether for principal, interest, costs, charges or otherwise remain outstanding and unpaid." Intimation of the power of attorney was given by the appellant to the military authorities. On July 19; 1948 Malhotra made out a bill on the military authorities for Rs. 49,633/8/7 then due to him in respect of his supplies under the contracts during 1945-46 and handed over the bill to the appellant for collection. On the bill Malhotra made the following endorsement: "Please pay to Bharat Bank Ltd. Jabalpur." The appellant sent the bill to the military authorities for payment. Before the appellant received the payment, the amount due under the bill was attached by Takhatmal in execution of a money decree obtained by him against Malhotra. The appellant filed objections in the execution proceedings. On September 11, 1952 the objections were dismissed. On December 12, 1952 the appellant filed a suit in the court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, against Malhotra And Takhatmal asking for a declaration that the appellant was an assignee of the bill and that Takhatmal had no right to attach it. The Trial Court held that the appellant was the assignee of the bill and decreed the suit. Takhatmal filed an appeal against the decree. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.

2. The sole question in this appeal is whether the power of attorney dated July 13, 1946 coupled with the endorsement on the bill dated July 19, 1948 amounts to an equitable assignment of the monies due under the bill in favour of the appellant. Th









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top