P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit instituted by the Calcutta National Bank Limited as early as 19-8-1949 claiming a decree for Rs. 6,04,513-10-5 and a charge for the same amount under a hypothecation deed. Since the institution of the suit the plain-tiff Bank has gone into liquidation. The order winding up the plaintiff Bank was made on 2-12-1952. The written statement of the defendant had been filed before that order of winding up. In fact the written statement was filed on 21-9-1949.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the plaintiff bank now in liquidation Kanak Nath Bhattacharjee and Bimal Chandra Majumdar have given evidence. No one oil behalf of the defendant or the defendant himself has given evidence.

( 3 ) KANAK Nath Bhattacharjee on behalf of the plaintiff Bank has proved the hypothecation deed dated 10-1-1943 executed by the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff Bank. In fact Kanak Nath Bhattacharjee was an attesting witness to the deed. He also proved a copy of the statement of account, 1948-49, a copy of which has been annexed to the plaint. This account is certified by the then Manager of the plaintiff Bank Bimal Chandra Majumdar. The evidence of Kanak Nath Bhattacharjee also shows that the total amount now due to the plaintiff bank by the defendant is Rs. 8,00,040-0-10 after giving credit for two sums of about Rs. 4000/- and about Rs. 1,00,000/- received since the Institution of the suit.

( 4 ) MR. Bimal Chandra Majumdar has proved the certified copy of the statement of account of the defendant and he has proved his own certificate to this account. His certificate is in these terms:"i certify that the above entries are the true copies of the entries of the account Sonapur Tea Co. Ltd. (hypothecation) 51/d, Sambhunath Pundit Street, Calcutta, made in the ledger of the Calcutta National Bank Ltd. , P 2, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta, kept in the usual and ordinary course of business and that the serial ledger is still in the custody of the bank. Sd. Bimal Chandra Majumdar, Manager, 13-8-49. "this account was made up to the date of the institution of the suit in 1949 and shows that a sum of Rs. 6,04,513-10-5 was due by the defendant to the plaintiff bank on that account at the time of the institution of this suit. Since then seven years have elapsed.

( 5 ) MR. Bhabra appearing on behalf of the defendant has taken three defences. His first defence is that the statement of account should not be taken as proved. His second defence is that the hypothecation deed limits the amount of advance to three lacs of rupees and therefore the charge should not be made for any amount exceeding three lacs of rupees. His third defence is that at any rate no interest should be allowed on a sum beyond three lacs of rupees.

( 6 ) I shall take up the defences in the order that they have been argued by Mr. Bhabra. Mr. Bhabra relied on Section 45f, Banking Companies Act, 1949 to say that the liquidator's certificate to the statement of account should have been obtained before it became proved in evidence. Now that section says that entries in the books of account and other documents of a banking company which has been wound up shall be admitted in evidence in all the proceedings by or against the banking company and all such entries may be proved either by the production of the books of account or other documents of the banking company containing such entries or by the production of a copy of the entries certified by the Official Liquidator under his signature and stating that it is a true copy of the original entries and that such original entries are contained in the books of account or other documents of the banking company in its possession. Therefore Mr. Bhabra said that the Official Liquidator should have certified these entries.

( 7 ) NOW there are many answers to this argument. The first answer is that Section 45p, Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended is not a provision in derogation of the Evidence Act, the Bankers Books Ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document