Skip to content


Eastern Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. N.T. Philip - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberB.C.C. No. 100 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Ker194
ActsContract Act, 1872 - Sections 23 and 24
AppellantEastern Mercantile Bank Ltd.
RespondentN.T. Philip
Appellant Advocate Joseph M. Madathil, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.K. Mathew and; George Vadakkel, Advs. for Defendants 1 and 3,;
Excerpt:
- - , for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the case......the sum of -rupees 2,400 misappropriated by hisson the 3rd respondent and as a compromise of the police prosecution pending against the latter. theprosecution then pending in the peermade 1stclass magistrate's court was for a non-compound-able offence under section 408, i.p.c. it only remains to add that, on the day after the mortgage, the managing director of the claimant bank wroteto the police not to proceed with the prosecutionand that the case was eventually thrown out in1958 under section 253(2) cr. p. c., for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the case. obviously the mortgage is void under section 24 of the indian contract act and it is quiteunnecessary to refer to the decisions cited at the bar to come to this conclusion. i find issue 3, of the issues.....
Judgment:

P.T. Raman Nayar, J.

1. This is one of those very rarecases where an agreement to stitle prosecution is set out on paper, for, the very mortgage deed onwhich the claim is based, expressly states that the mortgage was executed by the 1st respondent for the sum of -Rupees 2,400 misappropriated by hisson the 3rd respondent and as a compromise of the police prosecution pending against the latter. Theprosecution then pending in the Peermade 1stclass Magistrate's Court was for a non-compound-able offence under Section 408, I.P.C. It only remains to add that, on the day after the mortgage, the Managing Director of the claimant Bank wroteto the police not to proceed with the prosecutionand that the case was eventually thrown out in1958 under Section 253(2) Cr. P. C., for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the case. Obviously the mortgage is void under Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act and it is quiteunnecessary to refer to the decisions cited at the bar to come to this conclusion. I find issue 3, of the issues framed, against the claimant and dismiss the claim. There will be no order as to costs.


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