Judgment. - This is a suit for a declaration that the defendant bank, which is now in liquidation, holds a sum of Rs. 27,875 being the amount collected by it on 3 bills of that value as agent or trustee for the plaintiff, for a decree for Rs. 27,875 for injunction and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. On November 6, 1946, the plaintiff sent, by a letter of that date, a bill for Rs. 10,225 to the Champadanga branch of the defendant bank for collection and for sending the proceeds by a "Lahore Draft". On November 12, 1946, and November 13, 1946, the plaintiff similarly sent two bills for Rs. 8825 and Rs. 8825 respectively with similar instructions to the said branch of the defendant bank. On November 19, 1946, the Manager of the plaintiff bank asking for information as to what has happened to the bills, the said branch of the defendant bank sent three drafts to the plaintiff drawn on November 26, 1946 on its head office in Calcutta for Rs. 10,225, Rs. 8,825 and Rs. 8,825 respectively. It is not disputed that the said branch of the defendant bank realised the proceeds of the 3 bills from the drawees. The said drafts were sent by the plaintiff to the Central Bank of India for realisation. They were presented for payment to the head office of the defendant bank but were not paid. On November 26, 1946, the head office of the defendant bank wrote to the plaintiff that they had received payment from their said branch office but they were unable to pay, as payments have been suspended by the High Court. The Central Bank returned the drafts to the plaintiff whereupon it wrote to the defendant asking for reasons for nonpayment. The defendant bank replied that its business has been suspended by the High Court under S. 153 of the Indian Companies Act.

2. It appears that on November 25, 1946, an application was presented to this Court by the defendant bank for a scheme of arrangement under S. 153 of the Indian Companies Act. On that date, on the undertaking of the directors not to withdraw any money they had in the bank and not to transfer their shares in the bank, directions were given for convening meetings of the shareholders and of the creditors and until the final determination of the application or until further orders of the Court, the commencement and/or continuation of all suits and proceedings both civil and criminal against the defendant bank were stayed. In spite of the said order, the drafts were drawn on the next day, that is, November 26, 1947.

3. No payment having been made, the solicitors of the plaintiff wrote to the defendants solicitor claiming payment of the proceeds of the sum of Rs. 27,875, being the proceeds of the said three bills, which, it was alleged, the defendant was holding as trustee.

4. On March 12, 1947, this suit was filed. On behalf of the Official Liquidator a written statement has been filed, disputing that the defendant company held the proceeds of the said 3 bills as trustee or agent.

5. On behalf of the plaintiff Mr. Prannath Gupta was called. From his evidence and from the bundle of admitted correspondence and documents which has been marked Ex. "a" there can be no doubt that the defendant realised the bills as agent or trustee for the plaintiff. It will be remembered that the plaintiffs specific instructions were to send the proceeds by a Lahore Draft which, according to Mr. Gupta, means that the amounts collected were to be sent by a draft of a bank which had its branch in Lahore e.g., the Punjab National Bank, Central Bank of India. The defendant bank disregarded the express and specific instructions of the plaintiff and sent the proceeds by a draft drawn on its head office in Calcutta.

6. It is quite evident, therefore, that the defendant did not follow plaintiffs specific instructions in sending the drafts. It is true that the drafts were sent for encashment by the plaintiff to the Central Bank of India. It is suggested that the plaintiff thereby accepted the draft in payment and discharge of the defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document