Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Bank Ltd., Madras vs Kishinchand Chellaram on 25 September, 1953

Canara Bank vs Vijaya Bank on 1 October, 1991

But, as already stated the above referred t6 material fact of the abovesaid both the acts being "contemporaneous or so close in point of time as to be regarded as one transaction", has not been pleaded at all. So, it cannot be held that the respondent is not entitled to the protection under Section 131 of the Act. This plea is absolutely necessary and when there is no such plea, even if there is evidence to that effect, it cannot be looked into. But, in the present case, the learned Counsel for the appellant did not bring to our notice any evidence, at least regarding the abovesaid connection, either in what P.W.I deposed or in any document. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the respondent has not discharged the abovesaid onus of proof on it. 14. Even in the above referred to passage extracted from the Supreme Court decision, it has been specifically stated that in that case there was no evidence to show that the opening of the account and the collection of the cheques and drafts formed part of the same transaction."
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijaya Bank Limited, Rep. By Its Branch ... vs United Commercial Bank And Ors. on 29 October, 1987

The law on this section has been laid down with such lucidity that we find no scope for improving upon what is laid down in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Kishinchand Chellaram I.L.R. . That was a case where the cheque was issued on 24-11-1943. An account was opened on 6-12-1943 and a cheque for Rs. 125 was encashed on 7-12-1943 and another cheque was issued for a sum of Rs. 2,800 on 9-12-1943 and the money was also drawn. Under these circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Rajamannar, C.J., and Venkatarama Aiyar, J., considered the matter. Venkatarama Aiyar, J., speaking for the Bench, analysed the case-law with reference to English law as well and laid down the crux of the matter as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - S Mohan - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Central Scientific Supplies Company ... on 24 September, 1998

20. The next question that arises is whether the opening of the account in the name of M/s. Praful Shah & Bros, and the operation of the account cannot be regarded as parr of single transaction. Here also, both the Courts found that the account was opened on 25-10-1979 and a sum of Rs. 50GA was deposited and on 26-10-1979 another sum of Rs. 500/- was deposited and on the same date of cheque for Rs. 20,061.93 was presented for clearance. On 27-10-1979, a sum of Rs. 650/- was withdrawn from the account in question and on 30-10-1979, the sums of Rs. 1739/-, Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 1100/- were with drawn leaving a small balance of Rs. 573.93 to remain in the account. That apart, the address given is No. 162/A, Ashok Nagar, Madras 83, and there is no mention about the name of the street if any or sector of Ashok Nagar. The way in which the account was operated and the amounis were withdrawn should have aroused suspicion in the minds of the appellant bank. In my view, the facts clearly show that the acts of the appellant bank in permitting the account to be opened and operation of the account are parts of one transaction. Further, the question as to whether these two stages can be regarded as so intrinsically connected or construed to be one transaction is a question of fact as observed by this Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Kishinchand Chellaram, and both the Courts found on evidence that the appellant bank was negligent in the matter of opening of the account and deposit of the cheque and also withdrawal of the amount by way of cheques, and they form part of a single scheme and since the finding that both form part of the same transaction was arrived at on evidence, the Court accepts the finding. Therefore I am inclined to uphold the finding of both the Courts that the appellant bank was negligent at the time when the account was opened in the name of M/s. Praful Shah & Bros, and I also hold that the operation of the said account opened in the name of the said firm was so intrinsically connected with the opening of the account and they form part of the same transaction and the appellant bank was negligent both at the time of the opening of the account and at the time of the operation of the account as both the transactions arc single transaction.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Canara Bank vs Vijaya Bank on 1 October, 1991

Further, section 131A of the Act provides, inter alia, the section 131 of the Act shall to any draft also. Further, it has also been held that the expression "received payment for a customer" appearing in section 131 of the Act is not restricted to the actual receipt of payment only, but it includes the whole transaction from the taking of the cheque to the receipt and disposition of the money. (vide Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Kishinchand Chellaram, [1954] 24 Comp Cas 67; [1954] 1 MLJ 560.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Syndicate Bank vs Indian Bank And Ors. on 9 March, 2000

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Kishinchand Chellaram, , held that if the opening of the account and the deposit of cheque are really part of the same transaction or if the cheque was put into the account so shortly after the opening of the account, it may lead to an inference that the collection was part of the opening of the account, then the negligence on the part of the bank in the opening of the account must be treated as negligence in the matter of realisation of the cheques as well.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Punjab National Bank on 13 December, 1994

(28) One more judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court has been brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. It is titled Bharat Bank Ltd., Madras, Appellant v. Kishinchand Chellaram, Respondent. In this case, dealing with defense of a collecting Bank based on Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Division Bench observed: "WHEN in an action in conversion a defense is raised under Section 131 the primary question for determination is whether in the matter of realisation of the cheque the collecting Bank had acted without negligence - Negligence not merely atthe stage of encashment but at the prior stages from the receipt of the cheque in question. The question whether the Bank had acted with negligence in the opening of the account will be relevant under Section 131 to this extent that if the opening of the account and the deposit of the cheque are really part of one scheme as where the account itself is opened with the cheque in question or where it is put into the account so shortly after the opening of the account asto lead to the inference that it is part of it, then negligence in the matter of opening the account must be treated as negligence in the matter of realisation of the cheque. The question as to how far the two stages can be regarded as so intimately associated as to be considered as one transaction is a question offact."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next