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

1954 Supreme(Pat) 3

PATNA HIGH COURT
Narayan and B.P.Jamuar JJ.
Bharat Bank Ltd.
Versus
Sheoji Prasad
Appeal from Original Decree No. 163 of 1947 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 08, 1954

A pawnee must give the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale of pledged goods before selling them.

Headnote:

CONTRACT - PLEDGE - SALE OF PLEDGED GOODS - NOTICE - REASONABLE NOTICE - WHAT IS - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, SECS. 176, 177.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff bank sued the defendant to recover a sum of money due on a cash credit account secured by a pledge of grain. The defendant admitted the debt but contended that the sale of the grain by the bank was wrongful as no proper or reasonable notice had been given.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the bank had not given the defendant reasonable notice of the sale as required by Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act. The court also found that the price obtained for the grain was insufficient and that the defendant had already paid more to the bank than what he was liable to pay.

Issues: Whether the bank had given the defendant reasonable notice of the sale of the pledged goods.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice given by the bank was not reasonable as it did not contain definite particulars of the sale and that the defendant had not been given a proper opportunity to redeem the goods before the sale.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the bank's suit.

Judgment

Narayan, J.

1. The plaintiff (Bharat Bank Limited) is the appellant, and the appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7357/15/3 including interest. The plaintiff bank is a registered company having its head-office at Delhi and branches at several places in India. One of the branches of the company is situate in mahalla Saraiyaganj in the town of Muzaffarpur. The defendant carries on grain business at Bairagnia within the district of Muzaffarpur in the name and style of Messrs Ram Ganesh Ram Sheoji Prasad. In November 1944 he applied to the plaintiff bank at Muzaffarpur for opening a cash credit account with the bank up to the limit of Rs. 100,000 on the security of grains. The plaintiff company acceded to this request and allowed the defendant to open a cash credit account with the bank on 1-3-1945. On this very date the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the bank for Rs. 100,000 promising to pay interest at the rate of one per cent. per annum above the rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India subject to a minimum rate of 6 per cent. per annum with monthly rest. The defendant put the bank in control of his store of grains stored in his godown at Bairagnia.

On 21-9-1945 there was an adjustment of account and a sum of Rs. 18,448/10/3 was found due to the bank. This amount included Rs. 543-11-6 as interest, and the entire adjustment was confirmed by the defendant on 22-9-1945. The plaintiffs allegation is that as in spite of repeated demands the defendant did not clear up the account and pay the dues and that as the amount of the gram pledged with the bank was deteriorating the plaintiff, after giving due notice to the defendant, sold the grain on 29-11-1945 in presence of the defendant to one Messrs. Ramlagan Sah Balkuer Prasad of Bairagnia for a sum of Rs. 9200, which price was accepted as fair by the defendant. Thereafter, in January 1946 the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2500 to the plaintiff for which a credit had been given by the plaintiff. After deducting the amount for which the gram was sold and also after making allowance to the defendant for the payment of Rs. 2500 made in January 1946, the balance claimed by the plaintiff is Rs. 7357/15/3. The defendant admitted that by adjustment of accounts Rs. 18,448/10/3 had been found due from him, but he resisted the plaintiffs claim on the ground that the gram had been sold without any proper or reasonable notice and that the price fetched at the sale was consequently insufficient. According to the defendants contention the 3350 maunds of gram which be had deposited with the plaintiff and which had been sold should according to the then prevailing market rate, have fetched a price of Rs. 32,662/8/-. It is therefore that the defendants contends that he is entitled to get credit not only for the sum of Rs. 32,662/8/- but also for the price of bags in which the gram had been kept, besides the sum of Rs. 2500 for which credit has been given to him in the plaint.

2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the gram was not sold after a reasonable and a proper notice and that the value of the gram sold calculated at the rate of Rs. 9/12/- per maund would come to Rs. 32,662/8/-, besides the price of bags and the sum of Rs. 2500 actually paid to the plaintiff. In this view of the matter learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the claim of the plaintiff.

3. The learned Government Advocate, who argued this appeal on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, strongly relied on the letter, Ext. 1(a), which, in his opinion, conclusively established that the sale had been confirmed by the defendant. The witness who has proved this letter is the Manager of the plaintiff bank, and his statement so far as this letter is concerned is that it was given to him by the defendant Sheoji Prasad and that it was signed by him in his presence. Though the Manager is a fairly respectable witness, his statement to this effect cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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