Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the execution of Power of Attorney amounts to equitable assignment of the debt namely, the amounts covered by the bill and the appellant is aware of the assignment of debt by the 1st defendant to the Bank and the appellant also gave a letter of undertaking acknowledging the receipt of Power of Attorney to make the bill payments directly to the Bank under Ex. A. 13 and, therefore, the amounts withheld by the appellant on the supply of bills should be paid to the respondent Bank. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 313 wherein the Apex Court has held that the power of attorney coupled with the endorsement on the bill was a clear engagement by M to pay the appellant-Bank out of the moneys receivable under the bill and amounted to an equitable assignment of the fund by way of security. The obvious intention of the parties was to provide protection for the lender and to secure repayment of the loans. With that object in view the lender was authorised to receive payment of the loans. As the lender had an interest in the funds the Power of Attorney was expressed to be irrevocable.

There can be a valid equitable assignment of future debts. A pay order is revocable mandate. It gives the payee no interest in the fund. An assignment creates an interest in the fund and is not revocable. Read in the light of the Power of Attorney the endorsement on the bill created an interest in a specific fund and was irrevocable. There was thus a sufficient equitable assignment of a specific fund in favour of the appellant-Bank.

7. The Power of Attorney amounts to a binding equitable assignment which is an actionable claim. In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st defendant Bank authorising the Bank to receive all the money due or payable by the appellant and supply of others. The 3rd defendant has also accepted this. It is also an admitted fact that goods were supplied by the 2nd defendant respondent to the appellant and the goods have been received. The appellant has also made several payments to the Bank in respect of the supplies effected by the 1st defendant. The Counsel for appellant contends that only because the goods supplied by the 2nd respondent was not upto the specification he withheld the four payments. As rightly observed by the DRT, the standard conditions relied on by the defendant will be binding only between the contractual parties i.e. between the supplier, the 2nd respondent and the appellant and when once the 1st respondent Bank agreed to discount the bills on the Power of Attorney executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent Bank and in view of the letter of undertaking given by the appellant under Ex. A. 13, the entire bill amount discounted by the 2nd respondent for the supply effected by the 2nd respondent to the appellant shall be paid by the appellant to the 1st respondent Bank. The 1st respondent Bank had discounted bills based on supply bills and delivered a challan sent by the appellant for having received the goods. The appellant is not entitled to withhold the amount covered under the four bills for a sum of Rs. 90,055.74p, There is valid equitable assignment by execution of Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st respondent Bank authorising the Bank to receive all the money due and payable by the appellant on the supply of bills. The same thing has been accepted by the appellant also. The DRT has rightly issued Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs. 90,055.74 p against the appellant with proportionate costs.