Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad128
AppellantThe Official Assignee of Madras
RespondentKrishna Bhatta
Excerpt:
- miller, j.1. krishna bhatta had rs. 1,500 on fixed deposit with messrs. arbuthnot & co. from the 17th october, 1905 to the 17th october. 1906. the conditions being that after 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 & co. failed, it is argued on behalf of krishna bhatta that from and after the 17th october, 19q6 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.....
Judgment:

Miller, J.

1. Krishna Bhatta had Rs. 1,500 on fixed deposit with Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. from the 17th October, 1905 to the 17th October. 1906. The conditions being that after 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 & Co. failed, It is argued on behalf of Krishna Bhatta that from and after the 17th October, 19Q6 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 per cent, 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, I agree with Abdur Rahim, J., that cases like ex-parte Ward, In re Couston (1872) 8 Ch. Ap. 14 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. I think this appeal should be allowed and the application dismissed with costs.

Munro, J.

2. 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.

3. 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 //