Skip to content


Natesa Aiyar Vs. Sattaya Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in51Ind.Cas.386
AppellantNatesa Aiyar
RespondentSattaya Pillai and anr.
Cases ReferredKoneti Naicker v. Gopala Aiyar
Excerpt:
negotiable instruments act (xxvi of 1881), section 28 promissory note, execution of, by agent - nattukkotta chetty firms, practice of--vilasam of form prefixed by executant to his signature, effect of principal debited with amount in body of note--liability of agent. - .....the note that the debit was to be against the firm. this is not a case of mere description of the executant as an agent in the body of the note. the words used here exclude the application of section 26 of the negotiable instruments act (xvi of 1881), as there is sufficient indication in the note that 2nd defendant was excluding his personal liability. the principal, the 1st defendant, has accepted his liability under the note, the plaintiff's case that 2nd defendant was'a partner of the 1st defendant was not established, there being no evidence for it we do not think the first court meant to find any partnership.2. the letters patent appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent.
Judgment:

1. The ruling in Koneti Naicker v. Gopala Aiyar (1) 21 Ind. Cas. 417 is not applicable to the present case, as here the 2nd defendant has signed his name with the initials of the firm of the 1st defendant and has expressly stated in the note that the debit was to be against the firm. This is not a case of mere description of the executant as an agent in the body of the note. The words used here exclude the application of Section 26 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (XVI of 1881), as there is sufficient indication in the note that 2nd defendant was excluding his personal liability. The principal, the 1st defendant, has accepted his liability under the note, The plaintiff's case that 2nd defendant was'a partner of the 1st defendant was not established, there being no evidence for it we do not think the first Court meant to find any partnership.

2. The Letters Patent Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the 1st respondent.


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