Skip to content


S.M. Ramzan and Co., Trading at Aden in the Name of Aden Oil Company, by S.M. Ramzan, Merchant, Aden Vs. Sharife Mohamed Hasson Ayab, Merchant, Aden - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Bom520; 76Ind.Cas.578
AppellantS.M. Ramzan and Co., Trading at Aden in the Name of Aden Oil Company, by S.M. Ramzan, Merchant, Aden
RespondentSharife Mohamed Hasson Ayab, Merchant, Aden
Excerpt:
.....draft over to the firm of rajeebhoy lallji and co. thereafter, the drawee became an insolvent, with the result that the defendant lost the benefit, of the money which was with the drawee and which should have been paid to the plaintiffs if he bad done what he ought to have done when he got the draft. on these facts the law is perfectly clear......in default and not on the drawer. we think, therefore, the decision of the lower court was right and return the record with this expression of our opinion.2. costs, costs in the cause.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 1,577-12-0 against the defendant as the price of certain goods, sold. It appears from the record that the defendant gave the plaintiffs a draft on one Devji Sarakchand for the amount on 20th September 1920, and, if the plaintiffs had presented the draft to the drawee at once, it would have been honoured. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs endorsed the draft over to the firm of Rajeebhoy Lallji and Co., on the 1st October 1920. On the 16th October 1920 the drawee made up his account with the drawer leaving the amount with the drawee which would have been sufficient to pay the draft, so that, between the 1st October and the 16th October, if the draft had been presented it would have been paid. Thereafter, the drawee became an insolvent, with the result that the defendant lost the benefit, of the money which was with the drawee and which should have been paid to the plaintiffs if he bad done what he ought to have done when he got the draft. On these facts the law is perfectly clear. In the first instance, the delivery of a draft is conditional payment, and if the draft is not met in due course the original debt can be sued on. But if the person to whom the draft is given fails to exercise due diligence in presenting the draft, with the result that loss is caused to the drawer, then the loss must fall on the party in default and not on the drawer. We think, therefore, the decision of the lower Court was right and return the record with this expression of our opinion.

2. Costs, costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //