M.MADHAVAN NAIR
ELIAKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
PUDUKAD PUBLIC BANK – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.