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

1963 Supreme(Ker) 1

M.MADHAVAN NAIR
ELIAKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
PUDUKAD PUBLIC BANK – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This appeal has exposed a strange process by which a plaintiff could forcibly realise his claim from a defendant before the suit came up for trial. The manoeuvre did not stop there. After that recovery the plaintiff collected the suit amount from another defendant in the suit and agreed to the dismissal of the suit as against the first mentioned defendant and resisted successfully a claim for refund of what has been admittedly taken twice over on the ground that the section of the Code is misquoted.

2. The facts are thus: One K. R. Anthony issued a post-dated cheque to P.K. Anthony on the Cochin Nayar Bank Ltd., Pudukad branch. P. K. Anthony endorsed it in favour of the respondent Bank and got it discounted by Nanappan Anthony who was then manager of the Bank. The cheque was dishonoured by the drawee Bank on presentation at maturity. The respondent Bank then filed O. S. No. 38 of 1122 on the file of the District Court, Anjikaimal (Now Ernakulam), against K. R. Anthony, P. K. Anthony and Nanappan Anthony for damages suffered by it on account of the above transaction, and attached before judgment a money-decree that had been obtained by Nanappan Anthony in O. S. No. 615





























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top