Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.16 seconds)
Gopesh Chandra Pal And Anr. vs Nirmal Kumar Das Gupta on 12 August, 1949 cites

S. Pakrashi And Anr. vs Emperor on 4 June, 1941

The bank is liable to pay the money to the customer when Called upon but until Called upon to pay it the bank is entitled to utilise the money in investment and in other ways for earning profit therefrom. On this ground also it is quite clear that there can be no case against the Bank or any of its officers for committing an offence under Section 409, Penal Code. Section 409, Penal Code, presupposes an entrustment and in the present case there was no entrustment. For this view I would refer to the case of S. Pakrashi v. Emperor and also to the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney-General to the Province of Quebec, 51 C. W. N. 427; (A. I. R. (34) 1947 P. C. 44).
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1