P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the learned trial Judge, Mr. Justice S. R. Das Gupta decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 20,925/13/8 with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum and costs. The suit was filed by Sree Bank Limited (in liquidation) through its Official Liquidator against the defendant on a mutual, open and current account which the defendant had with the Bank.

( 2 ) THE defendant on 9-1-1946 by letter Ex. 1 addressed to the Managing Director of the plaintiff Bank opened "a current deposit account" with a cash deposit of Rs. 201/ -. The evidence of the Managing Director, Sudhansu Kumar Biswas is that subsequently the defendant asked and was granted a temporary overdraft on this account. The account, therefore. was both a current deposit account as well as an overdraft account.

( 3 ) TWO witnesses Gopal Chandra Roy, an accountant of the bank and Sudhansu Kumar Biswas, one of the Managing Directors, gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff bank. The defendant himself was the only witness who gave evidence on his own behalf. The defendant's evidence was not accepted by the learned trial Judge.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that be does not challenge the finding of facts by the learned Judge and he has not contended that the defendant's evidence should have been accepted or that the plaintiff's evi dence should be rejected. This fact must be recorded.

( 5 ) THE only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is a point of limitation. The appellant contends that the claim of the plaintiff bank is barred by limitation, It also contends that Article 85 of the Limitation Act wnich was used in this case to save limitation does not apply to the kind of account that the defendant had with the plaintiff-bank. In other words, the submission is that the account was not a mutual, open and current account. The point requires careful examination.

( 6 ) THE basis of this argument is that a bank which has gone into liquidation at the time of the institution of the proceedings cannot be said to have a mutual, open and current account. Liquidation of a bank means that the bank cannot keep the account of the depositor mutual, or open or current. The legal effect of a liquidation is that such accounts are closed by the order of liquidation and the account cannot be operated either by the customer or by the Liquidator. The second part of this argument is that Section 45f of the Banking Companies Act as amended in 1950 giving an additional period of one year cannot be availed in the facts or this case.

( 7 ) TO appreciate this point of limitation it is necessary to state a few short dates and make a short analysis of the nature of account in this ease. The record shows that the petition for winding up of this bank was made on 11-5-1948. The order for winding up of the bank was made on 3-8-1948. The proceeding was originally instituted as an application on 19-6-1950 and was subsequently converted into a plaint by amendment on 18-1-1952. The account as I hava stated before, was opened by cash deposit on 9-1-1946. Since that date no further deposit by cash at by cheque or otherwise was made by the defendant, and therefore, there are no credit entries in that account after 9-1-1946. Withdrawals were made from this account from time to time by the defendant. The last withdrawal was made on 16-4-1946. Since then the only entries are which the bank made debitina interest on this account from time to time. The Banking Companies Act. 1949 came into force on 16-3-1949 preceded by an Ordinance, being Ordinance 23 of 1949 on 19-9-1949 which inter alia introduced provisions of Section 45f later incorporated in the Act of 1949.

( 8 ) DEALING with the first submission of the appellant that the account in this case was not mutual. current and open, it is necessary to clear the ground by saying that the numerous decisions on the point do not actually decid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document