Skip to content


In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940Mad139
AppellantIn Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd.;barkat Ali and ors. and New Field and Co. by Proprie
Respondent;james Voce Pirrie, Cyril Gill and Stanley GoodwIn (Official Liquidators)
Excerpt:
- .....and quilon bank ltd. it is alleged in the affidavit that on 20th june 1938, the day on which the bank suspended payment, a sum of rs. 533-1-0 was handed to the bank for remitting it by telegraphic transfer to the great indian trading co. at bombay. it is in evidence that the applicant had a current account with the bank but the bank did not credit the said sum of rs. 534-5-0 in his account, but only a sum of re. 1-4-0 being the charges for the intended transfer was debited. it is also in evidence that the money was never transferred because on that very day the bank suspended payment. on the facts of this case, it seems to me that the money was held apart by the bank as the property of the applicant. i am also inclined to the view that the money was received by the bank in the capacity.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is an application for payment of a sum of Rs. 534-5-0 to the applicant in preference to the ordinary creditors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. It is alleged in the affidavit that on 20th June 1938, the day on which the Bank suspended payment, a sum of Rs. 533-1-0 was handed to the Bank for remitting it by telegraphic transfer to the Great Indian Trading Co. at Bombay. It is in evidence that the applicant had a current account with the Bank but the Bank did not credit the said sum of Rs. 534-5-0 in his account, but only a sum of Re. 1-4-0 being the charges for the intended transfer was debited. It is also in evidence that the money was never transferred because on that very day the Bank suspended payment. On the facts of this case, it seems to me that the money was held apart by the Bank as the property of the applicant. I am also inclined to the view that the money was received by the Bank in the capacity of a mere agent. The claim must therefore be upheld. In the view I take of the facts of this case, I think it unnecessary to discuss the various authorities cited at the Bar. This application is therefore allowed with costs. The applicant will get Rs. 35 plus Rs. 5 for the Judges summons and the Official Liquidators Rs. 35.


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