Skip to content


The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. U. Krishna Bhatta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ127
AppellantThe Official Assignee of Madras
RespondentU. Krishna Bhatta
Excerpt:
- - failed. were, doubtless, bound to repay and failed to do so, but a creditor cannot, it seems to me, transform his debtor into a trustee by demanding repayment of the debt. that cases like ex parte ward in re coustan (1873) 8 ch. 4. i am now satisfied that the view i formerly took in this case is erroneous and that a mere demand for payment, as in this case, could not have the effect of changing the pre-existing relationship of debtor and creditor.miller, j.1. krishna bhatta had rs. 1500 on fixed deposit with messrs. arbuthnot and co. from the 17th october 1905 to the 17th october 1906; no interest should be payable unless the deposit was renewed. he sent up his deposit receipt in due course for repayment of the money but before repayment was made messrs. arbuthnot and co. failed. it is argued on behalf of krishna bhatta that from and after the 17th october 1906 the money was held by messrs. arbuthnot & co. in a fiduciary capacity. i am unable to find anything in the contract as disclosed by the evidence to indicate that the relation of banker and customer came to an end on the 17th october 1906. as i understand it, after that date the money remained as a deposit but bearing no interest till renewal, the reason being that the.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. Krishna Bhatta had Rs. 1500 on fixed deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot and Co. from the 17th October 1905 to the 17th October 1906; no interest should be payable unless the deposit was renewed. He sent up his deposit receipt in due course for repayment of the money but before repayment was made Messrs. Arbuthnot and Co. failed. It is argued on behalf of Krishna Bhatta that from and after the 17th October 1906 the money was held by Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. in a fiduciary capacity. I am unable to find anything in the contract as disclosed by the evidence to indicate that the relation of banker and customer came to an end on the 17th October 1906. As I understand it, after that date the money remained as a deposit but bearing no interest till renewal, the reason being that the bankers were not willing to pay interest at 5 p.c. on loans repayable by them on demand though they would do so on loans for a fixed term. And I cannot see that the demand for repayment makes any difference. Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. were, doubtless, bound to repay and failed to do so, but a creditor cannot, it seems to me, transform his debtor into a trustee by demanding repayment of the debt. It is true that the creditor might have directed the bankers from a certain date to hold the money due from them for a special purpose on his behalf, and they might have agreed to do so, but a simple demand and promise to repay the money does not amount to an agreement of that kind.

2. I agree with Abdur Rahim J. that cases like Ex parte Ward In re Coustan (1873) 8 Ch. Ap. 144 have no bearing on the present case, if only for the reason that here the money belonged to the bankers ; they were not the reputed owners but the real owners thereof.

3. I think this appeal should be allowed and the application dismissed with costs.

Munro, J.

4. I am now satisfied that the view I formerly took in this case is erroneous and that a mere demand for payment, as in this case, could not have the effect of changing the pre-existing relationship of debtor and creditor. I therefore agree to the proposed order.

Abdur Rahim, J.

5. I agree, and have nothing to add to what I have already said on the point.


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