CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
Kondaiah, J. -
(1.) This appeal by the Central Warehousing Corporation, the 2nd defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree, passed against it and in favour of the Central Bank of India in O.S. No. 14 of 1966 by the Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secundrabad for the recovery of a sum, of Rs. 54,311-13 p. with interest at 6 % from 1-7-1966.
(2.) The Central Bank of India Ltd., the 1st respondent herein, claimed the suit amount against the 1st defendant. Gali Krishnamurthi who borrowed certain sums of money on cash Credit Kev Loan Account. The 1st defendant has edorsed several warehouse receipts including Exs.A. 53 and A. 54 obtained by him from the appellant. The claim of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant is in respect of the sums borrowed by him from the bank and in so far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, the plaintiffs claim is based on the receipts Exs. A. 53 and A, 54 given by the Warehouseman to the 1st defendant. The right to claim the value of the goods covered by Exs. A.53 and A. 54 has accrued to the plaintiff on account of the endorsements made by the depositor, the 1st defendant in its favour. The 1st defendant was ex parte in the trial court. The suit was resisted by the appellant contending inter alia that it was not maintainable for failure to issue the statutory notice, that there was no cause of action against it and that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff examined its Chief Agent as P. W. I and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and filed exs. A. 1 to 55 in support of its case. The 2nd defendant examined D. Ws. 1 to 4 and filed Exs. B. 1 to B. 9 to substantiate its defence. The trial court framed as many as about 9 issues. On a consideration of the entire material on record , it found in favour of the plaintiff on all the material issue and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Sri Ramachandra Rao and Sri J. K. Hiranandani, the learned counsel for the appellant, passed upon us that there was no cause of action against the appellant that the suit was barred by limitation at least in so far as the claim on the basis of Ex. A.54 is concerned, that the suit is not maintainable as it failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Hyderabad area Warehouses Rules 1959, that there was fraud committed by the 1st defendant on T. Rajagopalan, then Warehouoseman at Hyderabad. That T. Rajagopalan is a necessary party and that suit, in any event, should be dismissed. This claim of the appellant has been resisted by Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-decree holder contending inter alia that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant and the Court below has rightly decreed the suit against the defendants 1 and 2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.