NEW HINDUSTAN BANK Vs. AMRITSAR PATHANKOT TRANSPORT LTD
LAWS(P&H)-1957-11-12
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 28,1957

NEW HINDUSTAN BANK LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
AMRITSAR PATHANKOT TRANSPORT LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) A payment order was passed on 13th of August, 1953 by Falshaw, J. for recovery of Rs. 17,928/12/6 with future interest at six per cent, per annum in favour of the Bank. It was also ordered that two vehicles Nos. PBA-1097 (present no. PNA-1097) and PBA 1114 (present No. PNA-1114) liable to be sold and the proceeds made available towards the amount due to the Bank from defendants nos. 1, 2 and 3. It was also ordered that defendant No. 4, the New United Transport Company limited, should be liable for the plaintiff's costs. Letters Patent Appeal against the above order was dismissed on 25th of September, 1956, vide L. P. A. No. 84 of 1953. During the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal order had been obtained staying the execution of the payment order. The two vehicles PNA-1097 and PNA1114 were attached on 18th November, 1953. One Master Karam Chand, Managing Director of the New United Transport company (Private) Limited was made the sapurdar and the sapurdnama, Exhibit r-4, was duly executed by him. On I8th of November, 1953, the value of the two vehicles was mentioned as Rs. 5,000/ -. The attached vehicles were kept at the place of the judgment-debtor and a security deed was executed. In this document also the value of the two vehicles was assessed at Rs. 5,000/ -. After the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Bank took out execution for the sale of the two vehicles. It is stated that the vehicles could not be sold in view of their unserviceable condition. It is alleged that the deterioration had been caused due to the negligence of the sapurdar and that the vehicles were not in the condition in which they were when they had been entrusted to the sapurdar. On 24th of May, 1957 the Bank filed an application under Order 21, Rule 43-D and sections 145 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was alleged that at the time of the attachment of the two vehicles, bus No. PNA1097 was in running condition and was being plied by respondent No. 1. The other vehicle PNA-1114 was said to be complete in all respects but that it had no body. It was then stated that when the vehicles were being sold a number of accessories and parts of the engine were missing. According to the report Of Shri Harbans Lal, nazir, Exhibit D-H/1, vehicle PNA-1097 was without radiator, carburettor, hosepipe, distributor cup, plugs, battery and gear lever. The body of the bus was in a badly damaged condition. It was also stated that at the time of attachment this vehicle was in running condition but on account of the damage caused to it, it could not be sold. The condition of the other vehicle was also stated to be very bad and some of the parts were missing. It was also stated in the petition that the value of PNA-1097 at the time of pledge on 29-5-'46, was rs. 9,673/5/- and that of PNA-1114 was Rs. 6,622/4/ -. Respondent No. 3, Master Karam Chand, the Sapurdar, was liable to restore the vehicles to the same condition in which they were at the time of attachment. In the alternative it was prayed that the respondents should pay the value of these vehicles as stated above. The respondents in their written statement denied the above allegations and stated that the vehicles at present are in the same condition in which they were at the time of the attachment. They also raised several other pleas which gave rise to the following issues: 1. Is the petition maintainable ?
(2.) ARE the attached vehicles in the same condition in which they were at the time of their attachment ?
(3.) WHAT is the extent of the liability of the respondents with respect to the vehicles ?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.