High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C. P. SEN, P. C. PATHAK
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
GRAINS AND GUNNY AGENCIES - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL 114 Of 1979
Decided On : 03/08/1988
(2) Contract Act, 1872-Ss. 151 and 152-bailee safeguarded against natural calamities and theft-taking of care neither pleaded nor proved-goods deteriorated-pledged amount cannot be demanded. AIR 1960 Cal. 455, AIR 1914 Born. 154 and AIR 1967 SC 1322 relied on [Para 14]
(3) Contract Act, 1872-Ss. 152 and 23-Contract of exemption from any liability for any loss due to negligence of staff-- not hit by S. 23, ILR 1909 Mad. 95 (F. B.), AIR 1983 Pan. & H. 244, (1913) 38 Mad. 941, AIR 1955 Mad. 602, AIR 1965 Cal. 259 and AIR 1959 Mad. 285 relied on. [Para 13]
(4) Contract Act, 1872-S. 152-words "any other cause" in contract-cannot be interpreted to mean exemption even from negligence of employees of bailee. (1971) 41 Compary Cases 557 dissented from. [Para 14]
(5) Pleadings- exemption not pleaded-no new plea can be set up at appellate stage.
[Para 15]
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of F. A. No. 11 of 1979 Central Bank of India v. M/s. Nirbharam and Sons.
( 2 ) F. A. No. 114/1979 is filed by plaintiff/ appellant against the dismissal of his civil suit No. 4-A/72 while F. A. No. 115/1979 is filed by the plaintiff/appellant against partial dismissal of civil suit No. 3-A/72 of the Court of District Judge, Raigarh, who disposed of both the suits by a common judgment and decree dated 5-2-1979. ( 3 ) IN both the suits, Central Bank of India, Branch Raigarh, M. P. (hereinafter in short 'bank') is the plaintiff. In F. A. No. 114/79, the defendants/respondents are M/s. Grains and Gunny Agencies and its four partners. The plaintiff's case is that on 3-5-1971, the respondents Firm opened a Cash Credit Key Loan Account (hereinafter in short 'key Loan Account') with the Bank. During the period 3-5-1971 to 10-9-1971, the defendants pledged their stocks of foodgrains with the Bank and obtained loan from time to time. The balance outstanding against the defendants as on 15-9-1971 was Rs. 67,553/ -. Shri S. R. Sidhwa, Bank's Inspector of Godowns found various discrepancies in the quantity and the quality of the pledged stocks and therefore the Bank called upon the defendants to liquidate the accounts in full and also to furnish additional security. The defendants failed to comply with the demand. On 5-8-1971, the Bank purchased the defendants' bill for Rs. 2,920/- drawn on M/s. Ramakant and Co. of Nagpur. The bill was, however, not retired by the drawee. The Bank called upon the defendants to pay the amount of bill with incidental charges and overdue interest. On their failure to do so, the amount of the bill, incidental charges and the interest were debited to the defendants' Key Loan Account on 15-10-1971. The Bank continued to retain possession of the pledged stocks and the goods under dishonoured documentary bills as per details in Anns. II and III for realisation of the outstanding dues against the defendants. The bank claimed a sum of Rs. 77,302. 69 p. as detailed below : (i) Rs. 71,833. 62 p. balance due Key Loan Account on 4-4-1972. (ii) Rs. 1,779. 62 p. interest from 1-4-1972 to the date of suit; and (iii) Rs. 3,679. 45 p. , towards the miscellaneous expenses. The Bank further claimed a decree declaring a charge and a direction for sale of the goods specified in Anns. II and III with the liberty to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the satisfaction of the decree and a personal decree for the balance jointly and severally against the defendants together with the costs of the suit.
( 4 ) IN F. A. No. 115/79, the defendant M/s. Nirbharam and Sons is a partnership firm comprised of partners defendants 2 to 6. On request by the defendants, the Bank prior to its nationalisation sanctioned the credit facilities, namely (i) Cash Credit Open Loan Facilities; (ii) Cash Credit Key Loan facilities; (iii) Documentary demand bills facilities; and (iv) Clean demand bills facilities. For availing the open loan facilities, the defendants hypothecated their stock in trade and goods in godown under their own lock and key to secure the loans. During the period 18-7-1962 to 6-9-1971, the defendants obtained open loan facility against hypothecation of stocks and the outstanding balance as on 15-9-1971 was Rs. 19,971. 25 p. The defendants also availed a Key loan facility against pledge of their goods between 4-2-1971 to 6-9-1971 and the balance as on 15-9-1971 was Rs. 50,521/ -. On inspection of the godowns, the Banks Inspector found several discrepancies in the quantity and qualities of the pledged stocks. However no such discrepancy was found in hypothecated stocks. The bank called upon the defendants to liquidate their all the outstanding loans. During the period 19-8-1971 to 8-9-1971, the Bank also purchased documentary bills aggregating to Rs. 47,930/- but these bills were not retired by the respective drawees on presentation. The Bank therefore called upon t
Follwed on : Indian Air Lines Corpn. v. Madhuri Chaudhari
SupremeToday
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.