Skip to content


Eastern Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Krishna Menon - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberBanking Company Claim No. 42 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Ker100
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 8, Rule 6; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 3
AppellantEastern Mercantile Bank Ltd.
RespondentKrishna Menon
Appellant Advocate Joseph M. Madathil, Adv.
Respondent Advocate V. Parameswara Menon, Adv.
Cases ReferredSee Thakur Prasad v. Benares Bank
Excerpt:
- .....admits the pronote but says that the claim is barred by limitation. it is apparently so but the staff security ledger shows that the pronote amount was advanced on the security of the staff security deposit of larger amount made by the defendant as an employee of the bank. if so, there can be no question of limitation when the debt is sought to be enforced against the security. even otherwise there is a distinction between a set-off claimed by the liquidator and a set-off under the o. p. c. for while the latter should be of a legally claimable debt, the former need not fulfil that condition. see thakur prasad v. benares bank, air 1941 all 278 (a). the claim of the bank is therefore allowed to be set-off against the claim of the debtorunder his staff security. the claim will therefore.....
Judgment:

Varadaraja Iyengar, J.

1. The claim is on the basis of a pronote. The debtor admits the pronote but says that the claim is barred by limitation. It is apparently so but the Staff Security Ledger shows that the pronote amount was advanced on the security of the Staff Security Deposit of larger amount made by the defendant as an employee of the Bank. If so, there can be no question of limitation when the debt is sought to be enforced against the security. Even otherwise there is a distinction between a set-off claimed by the Liquidator and a set-off under the O. P. C. For while the latter should be of a legally claimable debt, the former need not fulfil that condition. See Thakur Prasad v. Benares Bank, AIR 1941 All 278 (A). The claim of the Bank is therefore allowed to be set-off against the claim of the debtorunder his staff security. The claim will therefore beremoved from the fist but the defendant will be entitled to proceed only for balance after set-offagainst the claim herein. No costs.


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